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
environmental results as we work to increase the pace of improvement and identify new and
better ways to carry out our mission. It also emphasizes the need for sound management of our
federal resources, as delineated in the President's Management Agenda.
Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
The EPA's Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Annual Performance Plan and the Congressional
Justification requests $7.2 billion in discretionary budget authority and 17,324 Full Time
Equivalents (FTE). This request reflects the Agency's efforts to work with its partners towards
protecting air, water, and land, as well as providing for EPA's role in safeguarding the nation
from terrorist attacks. This request echoes the Administration's commitment to setting high
environmental protection standards, while focusing on results and performance, and achieving
goals outlined in the President's Management Agenda.
The budget builds on EPA's long record of accomplishments since its founding 37 years
ago. The agency and nation as a whole has achieved enormous successes. This budget builds on
these successes by strengthening our geographic initiatives, better leveraging our nation's
resources, strengthening citizen involvement, maintaining our enforcement capabilities, and
implementing the President's commitment to efficiently manage Federal resources.
Homeland Security
Following the cleanup and decontamination efforts of 2001, the Agency has focused on
ensuring we have the tools and protocols needed to detect and recover quickly from deliberate
incidents. The emphasis for FY 2008 is on several areas: decontaminating threat agents,
protecting our water and food supplies, and ensuring trained personnel and key lab capacities are
in place to be drawn upon in the event of an emergency. Part of these FY 2008 efforts will
continue to include activities to implement a common identification standard for EPA employees
and contractors, the SmartCard initiative.
Human Capital
EPA will continue its systematic approach to workforce planning throughout the Agency
by setting targets and closing competency gaps in the mission-critical occupations (MCOs) that
have been identified. This will be done through the ongoing use of human capital strategies to
ensure that the Agency recruits and retains a qualified pool of employees to protect human health
and safeguard the air, water, and land. EPA has met many important milestones in implementing
its revised Human Capital Strategy and the Human Capital Accountability Plan.
In FY 2006, the core competencies were assessed for the Agency's senior leadership,
human resources management, and information technology positions. The Agency will
implement plans to close the competency gaps identified. In FY 2007 and 2008, the Agency will
I/O- 1
-------
continue to assess the competencies for its priority MCOs. The assessment results will be used
by the Agency to target developmental resources and recruiting practices to ensure that EPA can
meet its mission and retain a highly-skilled, diverse, and results-oriented workforce with the
right mix of technical expertise, professional experience, and leadership capabilities.
Workforce
EPA values its world class workforce and its expertise enables us to meet our urgent
responsibilities across a broad range of national and local environmental issues. In FY 2007, we
are making adjustments to EPA's workforce management strategy that will help us better align
resources, skills, and Agency priorities. A key step in this adjustment is improving the alignment
between the total number of positions authorized and actual FTE utilization. As such, in FY
2008 EPA is proposing to reduce its Agency authorized FTE ceiling by approximately 235.9
positions to 17,323.8, which is consistent with the Agency's historical FTE levels. The result of
these reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in
carrying out its programs and will not result in an overall change in the number of FTEs at EPA.
The program project descriptions provided later in this document, provide the details of these
changes.
Organization of the Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In response to the President's Management Agenda, this budget more clearly integrates
budget and performance. EPA developed a submission that presents the budget in a more
succinct, programmatic format. It also closely aligns performance information with program
narratives. Verification and validation documents will be provided electronically.
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. To fully explain the Agency's resource needs, the Budget contains
annual performance goals and performance measures that the Agency uses to achieve its results.
Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Chapters include:
Resource Summary Tables
• Appropriation Summary ($s)
• Appropriation Summary (FTEs)
Goal Overview (Goals 1-5)
• Goal, Appropriation Summary ($s)
• Goal, Appropriation Summary (FTEs)
I/O-2
-------
Program/Project by Appropriation (EPM, ST, STAG, IG, BF, SF, LUST & OIL)
• Resources for Appropriation
• Annotated Bill Language by Appropriation
o Resource Table by Appropriation, Program/Project
o Program/Project Fact Sheets (the following is included within each factsheet)
• Resource Chart ($s, FTEs)
• Program/Project description
• FY 2008 Activities and Highlights
• Performance Targets
• FY 2008 Changes from FY 2007 President's Budget
• Statutory Authorities
Program Performance and Assessment
• PART - OMB Report
• PART - Supplemental Information
• Performance
o 4-year array of APGs, PMs and Baselines
o 4-year array of APGs, PMs and Baselines for Enabling Support Programs
Appendix
• Coordination with other Federal Agencies by Goal/Objective - Environmental Programs
• Coordination with other Federal Agencies by Goal/Objective - Enabling Support
Programs (ESPs)
• Major Management Challenges - Organized by Goal/Objective
• User Fees
• Working Capital Funds
• Acronyms for Statutory Authority
• STAG - Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
• Program/Projects by Appropriations
• Long Term Analyses
• Salary Calculations
• Legislative Proposals
• E-Government
I/O-3
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Resource Summary Tables
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY 1
Budget Authority 1
Full-time Equivalents (FTE) 2
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Budget Authority
(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 Funds
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2006
Actuals
$764,737.6
$2,331,934.7
$36,501.5
$41,672.2
$15,895.5
$1,294,641.5
$13,243.5
$32,283.4
$1,340,168.4
$86,184.4
$3,409,572.7
$8, 026, 667.0
$0.0
$8,026,667.0
FY 2007
Current
Rate CR
$766,465.0
$2,338,242.0
$35,100.0
$39,816.0
$16,506.0
$1,176,936.0
$13,316.0
$30,011.0
$1,220,263.0
$69,056.0
$3,009,348.0
$7,494,796.0
$0.0
$7,494,796.0
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
$7,315,475.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$754,506.0
$2,298,188.0
$38,008.0
$34,801.0
$17,280.0
$1,211,431.0
$7,149.0
$26,126.0
$1,244,706.0
$72,461.0
$2,744,450.0
$7,204,400.0
($5,000.0)
$7,199,400.0
RT-1
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Actuals Pres Bud Pres Bud
Science & Technology 2,433.0 2,431.6 2,405.8
Science and Tech. - Reim 3.8 3.0 3.0
Environmental Program & Management 10,765.6 11,007.5 10,867.0
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim 134.2 1.5 1.5
Inspector General 247.5 267.7 287.7
Oil Spill Response 84.2 98.7 102.2
Oil Spill Response - Reim 5.9 0.0 0.0
Superfund Program 2,965.7 3,097.1 3,056.8
IG Transfer 88.4 94.1 44.1
S&T Transfer 110.3 106.2 105.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund 3,164.4 3,297.4 3,205.9
Superfund Reimbursables 89.4 77.5 77.5
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 69.8 76.9 75.3
FEMA-Reim 3.7 0.0 0.0
WCF-REIMB 114.7 110.7 110.7
Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund 187.0 187.2 187.2
Pesticide Registration Fund 51.4 0.0 0.0
TOTAL, EPA 17,354.6 17,559.7 17,323.8
RT-2
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Goal and Objective Overview
GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY 1
Budget Authority 1
Authorized Full-time Equivalents (FTE) 3
Clean Air and Global Climate Change 7
Clean and Safe Water 12
Land Preservation and Restoration 16
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 22
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 29
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Budget Authority
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air and Global Climate
Change
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Clean and Safe Water
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Inspector General
Land Preservation and Restoration
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Inspector General
Hazardous Substance Superfund
FY 2006
Actuals
$927,328.8
$441,310.4
$213,853.5
$9,101.0
$255,366.5
$4,816.5
$2,881.0
$3,314,952.7
$484,561.6
$131,483.3
$6,253.9
$2,672,948.2
$19,705.8
$1,760,905.0
$218,819.5
$16,756.8
$5,042.9
$117,693.0
$86,184.4
$15,895.5
$2,255.4
$1,298,257.5
FY 2007
Current
Rate CR
$918,152.7
$454,102.6
$208,719.8
$8,748.4
$238,344.6
$4,864.4
$3,372.8
$2,824,280.4
$454,825.8
$165,869.6
$6,039.4
$2,180,239.7
$17,305.9
$1,653,880.8
$221,386.8
$11,806.4
$4,871.3
$145,158.0
$69,001.1
$16,506.0
$2,411.0
$1,182,740.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$933,690.8
$447,900.0
$214,789.2
$8,748.4
$253,692.5
$5,174.0
$3,386.7
$2,729,396.0
$449,866.5
$170,692.3
$6,039.4
$2,085,435.0
$17,362.7
$1,690,385.8
$218,760.6
$12,149.9
$4,871.3
$140,912.2
$72,759.0
$16,506.0
$2,494.6
$1,221,932.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$911,568.1
$439,346.3
$216,316.5
$7,636.6
$239,194.0
$5,550.1
$3,524.7
$2,714,315.3
$454,008.1
$150,194.4
$5,309.6
$2,085,766.0
$19,037.2
$1,663,120.2
$220,537.8
$12,367.4
$4,270.1
$125,620.0
$72,461.0
$17,280.0
$2,659.0
$1,207,924.8
G/O-1
-------
Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems
Environmental Program &
Management
Science & Technology
Building and Facilities
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
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 2006
Actuals
$1,264,197.4
$628,547.0
$345,535.3
$14,996.2
$251,621.8
$6,344.9
$17,152.3
$759,283.1
$558,696.3
$57,108.7
$6,278.3
$111,943.2
$3,378.9
$21,877.6
FY 2007
Current
Rate CR
$1,353,184.0
$646,757.4
$338,578.8
$13,951.7
$338,253.9
$7,116.2
$8,526.1
$744,109.2
$560,920.1
$41,025.9
$6,205.1
$106,877.9
$3,402.5
$25,677.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,227,659.4
$637,032.8
$348,424.1
$13,951.7
$213,656.3
$6,576.1
$8,018.3
$734,343.1
$553,057.1
$42,218.6
$6,205.1
$103,752.0
$3,492.5
$25,617.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,171,565.0
$619,420.0
$332,682.3
$12,167.4
$192,117.0
$6,863.1
$8,315.2
$743,831.4
$564,875.8
$42,945.5
$5,417.3
$101,753.0
$3,898.6
$24,941.2
Sub-Total
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
Total
$8,026,667.0
$7,493,607.1 $7,315,475.0
$7,204,400.0
;,026,667.0 $7,493,607.1 $7,315,475.0 $7,204,400.0
G/O-2
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Authorized Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Actuals Pres Bud Pres Bud
Clean Air and Global Climate Change 2 623 7 2 664 4 2 620 6
Environmental Program & Management \ 359 9 1 891 4 1 853 4
Science & Technology 680.6 688.3 680.0
Inspector General 327 395 42 o
Hazardous Substance Superfund 17 5 17 5 17 5
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim 29 03 03
Science and Tech. - Reim 27 30 30
FEMA-Reim 2.3 0.0 0.0
WCF-REIMB 25.0 24.3 24.3
Clean and Safe Water 2,888.3 2,890.8 2,895.6
Environmental Program & Management 2 221 6 2 229 1 2 229 6
Science & Technology 4957 5116 594.1
Inspector General 133 6 1324 1441
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim 19 4 Q 3 03
WCF-REIMB i8o 17.4 17.5
Land Preservation and Restoration 4 524 4 4 593 5 4 582 0
Environmental Program & Management i 199 o i 237 1 1 203 7
Science & Technology 515 512 508
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 59 g 75 9 75 3
Oil Spill Response 84 2 98.7 102.2
Inspector General 153 199 201
Hazardous Substance Superfund 3 012 0 3 120 1 3 039 4
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim 913 Q 1 01
Oil Spill Response - Reim 59 Q 0 00
FEMA-Reim L4 0.0 0.0
Superfund Reimbursables 89 4 77 5 77 5
WCF-REIMB 131 i2.9 13.0
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 3 gQS 5 3 825 4 3 743 9
G/O-3
-------
FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Actuals Pres Bud Pres Bud
Environmental Program & Management 2 420 2 25117 2 4418
Science & Technology 1,028.1 1,016.1 1,002.9
Inspector General 439 592 519
Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund 187 0 187 2 187 2
Hazardous Substance Superfund 275 213 211
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim 95 Q 5 05
Science and Tech. - Reim n Q 0 00
Pesticide Registration Fund 514 Q 0 00
WCF-REIMB 40.7 38.5 38.4
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 3 499 \ 3 435 (, 3 481 7
Environmental Program & Management 3 973 4 31382 31385
Science & Technology 176 9 164 5 167 9
Inspector General 22 9 26 6 29 5
Hazardous Substance Superfund iQ7 4 138 5 127 9
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim ±Q 5 Q 3 03
WCF-REIMB 179 175 176
Total 17,353.9 17,559.7
G/O-4
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 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 2011, 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.
• Through 2012, working with partners, reduce human health risks by reducing
exposure to indoor air contaminants through the promotion of voluntary actions
by the public.
• By 2030, through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will
have stopped declining and slowly begun the process of recovery, and
overexposure to ultraviolet radiation, particularly among susceptible
subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced.
• Through 2011, 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 80 million
metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) annually to the President's 18 percent
greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity goal by 2012. (An additional 24 MMTCE to
result from the sustained growth in the climate programs are reflected in the
Administration's business-as-usual projection for GHG intensity improvement.)
• Through 2011, 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
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air and Global
Climate Change
FY 2006
Actuals
$927,328.8
FY 2007
Current
Rate CR
$918,152.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$933,690.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$911,568.1
FY 2008 Pres
Budv.
FY 2007 Pres
Bud
($22,122.7)
G/O-5
-------
Healthier Outdoor Air
Healthier Indoor Air
Protect the Ozone Layer
Radiation
Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Intensity
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$599,210.0
$46,589.0
$17,252.1
$38,012.1
$124,735.0
$101,530.5
2,623.7
FY 2007
Current
Rate CR
$587,353.5
$48,768.1
$22,097.2
$39,447.7
$127,658.9
$92,827.4
2,660.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$628,676.1
$47,831.5
$21,665.6
$39,452.7
$99,750.4
$96,314.5
2,664.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$588,247.2
$45,698.8
$17,130.9
$39,318.1
$122,937.2
$98,235.9
2,620.6
FY 2008 Pres
Budv.
FY 2007 Pres
Bud
($40,428.9)
($2,132.7)
($4,534.7)
($134.6)
$23,186.8
$1,921.4
-43.8
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. Every year, state and Federal air pollution programs established under
the Clean Air Act prevent tens of thousands of premature mortalities, millions of
incidences of chronic and acute illness, tens of thousands of hospitalizations and
emergency room visits, and millions of lost work days.
Clean Air Rules
The Clean Air Rules are a major component of EPA work under Goal 1 and include a
suite of actions that will dramatically improve America's air quality. Three of the rules
specifically address the transport of pollution across state borders (the Clean Air
Interstate Rule, Clean Air Mercury Rule and Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule). These
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 the next 15 years one of the most productive periods of
air quality improvement in America's history. In FY 2008, EPA will be working with the
states and industry to implement these rules.
G/O-6
-------
Energy Policy Act
In addition to the suite of Clean Air Rules, EPA is investing over $8 million to develop
and operate the market-based credit trading system required by the Renewable Fuels
Standard (RFS) program, in addition to annual State-by-State surveys to determine
market shares of conventional and reformulated gasoline containing ethanol, and data
collection and analysis activities needed to evaluate the impacts of the RFS program on
the environment, air quality, and on the nation's energy security. The Renewable Fuels
Standards (RFS) rule is scheduled to be promulgated in 2007 and work will continue on
the development of several more actions required by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of
2005. Some of these EPAct actions involve a study of the changes in emissions of air
pollutants and air quality, and a fuel system harmonization study. In 2008, EPA will
promulgate new standards for locomotives and marine diesel engines, as well as new
standards for large commercial ships. EPA also will issue a rule 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).
Reduce Risks to Indoor Air and Radon Programs
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 and 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 carries out a national radon program that encourages and facilitates 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.
Radon is second only to smoking as a cause of lung cancer.
Climate Protection
For more than a decade, businesses and other organizations have partnered with EPA
through voluntary climate protection programs to pursue common sense approaches to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting the President's greenhouse gas intensity
goal. Voluntary programs such as Energy Star and SmartWay Transport have increased
the use of energy-efficient products and practices and reduced emissions of carbon
dioxide as well as methane and other greenhouse gases with very high global warming
potentials. These partnership programs 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. In 2008, EPA will invest $4.4
million in the Methane to Markets by assessing the feasibility of methane recovery and
G/O-7
-------
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. In addition EPA plans to invest $5 million to support the Asia-Pacific
Partnership programs. In FY 2008 this partnership between the United States Australia,
China, India, Japan, and South Korea will focus on developing country-specific strategies
to improve energy security and reduce pollution. EPA also will work with the Asia-
Pacific region to develop and deploy new and emerging technologies and tailor programs,
such as methane capture and use, to meet the specific conditions of each area. Both the
Methane to Markets program and Asia Pacific Partnerships will coordinate with other
agencies to achieve the goals in these programs.
Stratospheric Ozone - Domestic and Montreal Protocol
In FY 2008 EPA's Domestic Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program will invest $9.8
million support cost-effective projects that are designed to build capacity and eliminate
ODS production and consumption in over 60 developing countries. 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 ODS. Over 80% of
already agreed project activities have been implemented to date, with remaining work in
these already agreed projects expected to be fully implemented by 2009. In addition to
continuing to implement the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol), and 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.
Radiation Monitoring
In FY 2008, 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.
Global Change Research
EPA conducts research that provides a scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to
protect the air all Americans breathe. In FY 2008, EPA's air research program will
supports implementation of the Clean Air Act, especially the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS program will focus on setting limits on how
much tropospheric ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide; sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and lead are allowed in the atmosphere. EPA also conducts research to improve
understanding of the risks from hazardous air pollutants, also known as air toxics.
G/O-8
-------
In FY 2008, the Agency's air research program will continue research to understand the
sources and composition of air pollution; develop methods for controlling sources'
emissions; study atmospheric chemistry and model U.S. air quality; investigate
Americans' exposure to air pollution; and conduct epidemiological, clinical, and
toxicological studies of air pollution's health effects. The Agency also will award
research grants to universities and nonprofits to study topics such as how long-term
exposure to fine particles in the atmosphere influences heart disease. In FY 2008, an
important focus of the program will be air pollution near roads.
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 federal 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-9
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 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.
• By 2011, conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research to support the protection of
human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in drinking
water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters and to support the protection of
aquatic ecosystems-specifically, the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams, and coastal
and ocean waters.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean and Safe Water
Protect Human Health
Protect Water Quality
Enhance Research to Support
Clean and Safe Water
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$3,314,952.7
$1,233,605.2
$1,953,776.5
$127,571.0
2,888.3
FY 2007
Current
Rate CR
$2,824,280.4
$1,186,716.6
$1,503,178.8
$134,385.0
2,896.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,729,396.0
$1,176,754.8
$1,412,834.3
$139,806.8
2,890.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,714,315.3
$1,155,717.4
$1,422,163.4
$136,434.5
2,895.6
FY 2008 Pres
Budv.
FY 2007 Pres
Bud
($15,080.7)
($21,037.4)
$9,329.1
($3,372.3)
4.8
EPA implements the Clean and Safe Water goal through programs designed to provide
improvements in the quality of surface waters and drinking water. In FY 2008, EPA will
work with states and Tribes to continue to accomplish measurable improvements in the
safety of the nation's drinking water and in the conditions of rivers, lakes, and coastal waters.
With the help of these partners, EPA expects to make significant progress in these areas, as
well as support a few more focused water initiatives.
G/O-10
-------
The National Water Program will continue to pay special attention to sustainable
infrastructure and watershed stewardship, through its "four pillars" program, specifically
focusing on innovative financing and leveraging for infrastructure sustainability, banking for
wetlands conservation, and trading among point sources and non-point sources for water
quality upgrades. Additionally, in FY 2008, the Agency will continue advancing the water
quality monitoring initiative and a water quality standards strategy under the Clean Water
Act, as well as, important rules and activities under the Safe Drinking Water Act, involving
lead and emerging contaminants. Related efforts to improve monitoring and surveillance
will help advance water security nationwide.
Drinking Water
During FY 2008, EPA, the states and community water systems will build on past successes
while working toward the FY 2008 goal of assuring that 90 percent of the population served
by community water systems receives drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
standards. To promote compliance with drinking water standards, states carry out a variety
of activities, such as conducting onsite sanitary surveys of water systems and working with
small systems to improve their capabilities. EPA will work to improve compliance rates by
providing guidance, training, and technical assistance; ensuring proper certification of water
system operators; promoting consumer awareness of drinking water safety; maintaining the
rate of system sanitary surveys and onsite reviews; and taking appropriate action for
noncompliance. To help ensure that water is safe to drink, the FY 2008 President's Budget
requests $842 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
Clean Water
In FY 2008, EPA will work with states to continue progress toward the clean water goals to
implement core clean water programs, including innovations that apply programs on a
watershed basis, and to accelerate efforts to improve water quality on a watershed basis.
Building on the progress toward clean water achieved over the past 30 years, EPA is working
with states and Tribes to implement the Clean Water Act by focusing on: scientifically
sound water quality standards; effective water monitoring; strong programs for controlling
nonpoint sources of pollution; and strong discharge permit programs.
The Agency's request continues the monitoring initiative begun in 2005 to strengthen the
nationwide monitoring network and complete the baseline water quality assessment of lakes
and streams. These efforts will result in scientifically defensible water quality data and
information essential for cleaning up and protecting the nation's waters. Progress in
improving coastal and ocean waters documented in the National Coastal Condition Report
will be maintained by focusing on: assessing coastal conditions; reducing vessel discharges;
implementing coastal nonpoint source pollution programs; managing dredged material; and
supporting international marine pollution control. EPA will continue to provide annual
capitalization to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). The FY 2008 President's
Budget provides $688 million and will allow EPA to meet the Administration's Federal
G/O-11
-------
capitalization target of $6.8 billion total for 2004-2011 and enable the CWSRF to eventually
revolve at a level of $3.4 billion.
Private Activity Bonds
Included in the President's Budget is a proposal to exempt Private Activity Bonds (PABs)
used to finance drinking water and wastewater infrastructure from the private activity bond
unified state volume cap. PABs are tax-exempt bonds issued by a State or local government,
the proceeds of which are used by another entity for a public purpose or by the government
entity itself for certain public-private partnerships. By removing drinking water and
wastewater bonds from the volume cap, this proposal will provide States and communities
greater access to PABs to help finance their water infrastructure needs and increase capital
investment in the Nation's water infrastructure.
This Water Enterprise Bond proposal would provide an exception to the unified annual State
volume cap on tax-exempt qualified private activity bonds for exempt facilities for the
"furnishing of water" or "sewage facilities." To ensure the long-term financial health and
solvency of these drinking water and wastewater systems, communities using these bonds
must have demonstrated a process that will move towards full-cost pricing for services within
five years of issuing the Private Activity Bonds. This will help water systems become self-
financing and minimize the need for future subsidies.
Homeland Security
EPA has a major role in supporting the protection of the nation's critical water infrastructure
from terrorist threats. In FY 2008, EPA will continue to support the Water Security Initiative
(formerly known as Water Sentinel) pilot program and water sector-specific agency
responsibilities, including the Water Alliance for Threat Reduction (WATR), to protect the
nation's critical water infrastructure. The FY 2008 budget provides $22 million for the
Water Security Initiative completing deployment of final pilot systems. In FY 2008, the
Agency in collaboration with our water sector security stakeholders will continue our efforts
to develop, implement and initiate tracking of national measures related to homeland security
critical infrastructure protection activities.
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 2008, these research programs will conduct studies and deliver science products
needed by the nation to realize clean and safe water. The drinking water research program
will focus on filling key gaps in data, methods and technologies to support the Agency's
mission to protect drinking water from chemical and microbial contaminants including
G/O-12
-------
developing contaminant detection methods, conducting health effects studies, developing and
evaluating cost-effective treatment technologies, and constructing tools to protect source
waters. The water quality research program will continue providing approaches and methods
that 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. These programs also will conduct research that will yield tools and
strategies to manage our nation's aging water infrastructure.
Other important areas of research in FY2008 will include: 1) development of molecular
microarrays for detection of bacterial pathogens and non-pathogenic microbes in drinking
water source waters; 2) epidemiological studies on the illness rate for untreated groundwater
and distributions systems; 3) studies on the practice of blending together waste water
effluents in various stages of the disinfection process to prevent peak wet weather flows from
overwhelming treatment facilities while protecting water quality; and 4) providing more
efficient monitoring and diagnostic tools through continued research to develop methods of
using landscape assessments for monitoring and assessing watershed conditions. These
programs will help assess risks and priorities for ensuring clean water.
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.
G/O-13
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 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 2011, 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 2011, 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 2011, provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by
conducting leading-edge research, which through collaboration, leads to preferred
environmental outcomes.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Land Preservation and
Restoration
Preserve Land
Restore Land
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$1,760,905.0
$223,407.8
$1,479,533.9
$57,963.3
4,624.4
FY 2007
Current
Rate CR
$1,653,880.8
$250,024.2
$1,350,189.8
$53,666.8
4,691.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,690,385.8
$242,510.5
$1,397,705.7
$50,169.6
4,693.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,663,120.2
$231,574.8
$1,382,938.7
$48,606.7
4,582.0
FY 2008 Pres
Budv.
FY 2007 Pres
Bud
($27,265.6)
($10,935.7)
($14,767.0)
($1,562.9)
-111.5
Land is one of America's most valuable resources. 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. To address these issues, EPA implements the
Land Preservation and Restoration goal utilizing a three pronged approach—prevention,
protection, and response activities to address immediate needs; enforcement and compliance
G/O-14
-------
assistance to determine what needs to be done and who should pay; and sound science and
research to address risk factors and new, innovative solutions.
Prevention, Protection, and Response Activities
EPA leads the country's activities to prevent and reduce the risks posed by releases of harmful
substances and to preserve and restore land with effective waste management and cleanup
methods. In FY 2008, the Agency will continue to apply the most effective approach to
controlling these risks by developing and implementing prevention programs, improving
response capabilities, and maximizing the effectiveness of response and cleanup actions. This
approach will help ensure that human health and the environment are protected and that land is
returned to beneficial use.
In FY 2008, EPA also will continue to use 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.1
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, allowing land to be
returned 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. In FY 2008, EPA will continue to ensure that it is adequately prepared to minimize
contamination and harm to the environment from spills and releases of hazardous materials by
improving its readiness to respond to emergencies through training as well as maintaining a
highly skilled, well-trained, and equipped response workforce.
The following themes characterize EPA's land program activities under Goal 3 in FY 2008:
Revitalization; Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy Recovery; Emergency Preparedness,
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, Superfund Removal, RCRA Corrective Action, Brownfields, and
Underground Storage Tanks) and their partners are taking proactive steps to facilitate the
1 Additional information on these programs can be found at: www. epa. go v/superfund,
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/er/index.htm, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/. and
http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/landrevitalization.
G/O-15
-------
cleanup and revitalization of contaminated properties. Revitalizing these once productive
properties helps communities by 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. In reflection of the high priority
the Agency has placed on land revitalization, the Superfund program is participating in
efforts to implement cross-program revitalization measures to capture a broader array of
accomplishments across all of EPA's cleanup programs resulting from the assessment and
cleanup of properties. One example is the new Superfund Remedial PART measure "Acres
of land ready for reuse." In addition, in FY 2006 the Superfund program developed the
"Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use" measure to track National Priority List (NPL) sites
where construction of the remedy is complete; where cleanup goals in the Record of Decision
(ROD) have been achieved such that there are no unacceptable risks associated with current
and reasonably anticipated future uses; and where all institutional controls required in the
ROD have been implemented. In FY 2008, the Agency expects 30 NPL sites to achieve this
accomplishment.
• Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy Recovery: EPA's strategy for reducing waste
generation and increasing recycling will continue to be based on: 1) establishing and
expanding partnerships with businesses, industries, Tribes, states, communities, and
consumers; 2) stimulating infrastructure development and environmentally responsible
behavior by product manufacturers, users, and disposers; and 3) helping businesses,
government, institutions, and consumers reduce waste generation and increase recycling
through education, outreach, training, and technical assistance. In FY 2008, EPA will
continue the Resource Conservation Challenge 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.
• 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. In FY 2008, EPA will continue to improve its
capability to effectively prepare for and respond to these incidents, including natural disasters
such as hurricanes, by working closely with other Federal agencies within the National
Response Plan. EPA will also continue to develop a national environmental laboratory
capability and decontamination options to ensure that the nation can quickly recover from
nationally significant incidents.
• Implementing the EPAct: The EPAct2 contains numerous provisions that significantly affect
Federal and state underground storage tank (UST) programs and requires that EPA and states
strengthen tank release and prevention programs. In FY 2008, EPA is requesting $34 million
to provide assistance to states to help them meet their new responsibilities, which include 1)
mandatory inspections every three years for all underground storage tanks, 2) operator
training, 3) prohibition of delivery for non-complying facilities3, 4) secondary containment
2 For more information, refer to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109 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).
3 Refer to Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the Delivery Prohibition Provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
August 2006, EPA-510-R-06-003, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact_05.htm#Final.
G/O-16
-------
or financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and installers, 5) various compliance
reports, and 6) grant guidelines. EPA is also submitting new legislative language to allow
states to use alternative mechanisms such as the Environmental Results Program (ERP) to
meet the mandatory three-year inspection requirement. This proposal provides States with a
less costly alternative to meet the objectives of the Energy Policy Act. In FY 2008, EPA will
also implement the UST Tribal strategy4 developed in FY 2006 in Indian country.
Enforcement
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 appropriations. 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.5
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 and Enforcement program helps Federal and local governments, Tribes,
states, redevelopment authorities and the affected communities ensure contamination at Federal
or former Federal properties is addressed in a manner that protects human health and the
environment.6
In FY 2008, the Agency will continue to encourage the establishment and use of Special
Accounts within the Superfund Trust Fund. As of the end of FY 2006, EPA maintains more than
500 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. In addition, 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 2008, 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
4 Refer to Strategy for an EPA/Tribal Partnership to Implement Section 1529 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, August 2006,
EPA-510-F-06-005, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epactJ35.htmtfFinal.
5 For more information regarding EPA's enforcement program and its various components, please refer to
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/.
6 For more information on the Superfund Federal Facilities Response and Enforcement program, please refer to
http://www.epa.gov/fedfac.
G/O-17
-------
remediate sites. When appropriated dollars are used to clean up sites, the program will recover
this money from the PRPs whenever possible.
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.
Enhancing Science and Research to Restore and Preserve Land
The FY 2008 land research program supports the Agency's objective of reducing and 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 of sites in
accordance with CERCLA, RCRA and other applicable statutes. 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.
In FY 2008, EPA is requesting $48.6 million to enhance science and research in support of
EPA's land preservation and restoration programs. Research activities in FY 2008 will focus on
contaminated sediments, ground water contamination, site characterization, analytical methods,
and site-specific technical support. Research activities will advance EPA's ability to accurately
characterize the risks posed by contaminated sediments and determine the range and scientific
foundation for remedy selection options. EPA's land research program will also address the
transport of contaminants in ground water and subsequent intrusion of contaminant vapors into
buildings. Oil spill remediation research will continue to focus on physical, chemical, and
biological risk management methods for petroleum and non-petroleum oils spilled into
freshwater and marine environments, as well as development of a protocol for testing solidifiers
and treating oil. UST research will address the development of online transport models that can
be used by state project managers. Research in resource conservation, corrective action,
hazardous waste treatment, landfills, leaching, containment systems, and landfill bioreactors will
constitute the major areas of research and support for RCRA activities in FY 2008. In addition,
EPA's land research program will continue to provide site-specific assistance on technical issues
across the land remediation and restoration programs.
EPA will continue to collaborate with states and the private sector to conduct field sampling and
optimize operations and monitoring of long-term remedies and research activities. Furthermore,
in response to an independent review of the RCRA portion of the land research program, a shift
in the research program will be made in FY 2008 to address nanotechnology fate and transport
research issues in an effort by the program to focus on emerging issues and strategic research
topics.
G/O-18
-------
2006 PART
The following programs were assessed by OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) for
the 2006 PART process:
• Land Protection and Restoration Research
• Underground Storage Tank Program
More detailed information is provided in specific program project descriptions.
G/O-19
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 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:
• By 2011, prevent and reduce pesticide and industrial chemical 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 critical natural habitats and ecosystems.
• Through 2011, identify and synthesize the best available scientific information,
models, methods, and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions
related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems. Focus research on
pesticides and chemical toxicology; global change; and comprehensive, cross-cutting
studies of human, community, and ecosystem health.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Healthy Communities and
Ecosystems
Chemical and Pesticide Risks
Communities
Restore and Protect Critical
Ecosystems
Enhance Science and
Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$1,264,197.4
$400,291.2
$288,984.5
$190,453.1
$384,468.6
3,808.5
FY 2007
Current
Rate CR
$1,353,184.0
$397,124.7
$377,124.2
$200,050.5
$378,884.6
3,820.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,227,659.4
$386,011.2
$251,034.0
$198,150.5
$392,463.7
3,825.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,171,565.0
$387,165.5
$234,758.2
$178,373.7
$371,267.6
3,743.9
FY 2008 Pres
Budv.
FY 2007 Pres
Bud
($56,094.4)
$1,154.3
($16,275.8)
($19,776.8)
($21,196.1)
-81.5
G/O-20
-------
In FY 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency will protect, sustain or restore the
health of communities and ecosystems by bringing together a variety of programs, tools,
approaches and resources, including partnerships with stakeholders and Federal, state,
Tribal, and local government agencies. EPA manages environmental risks to watersheds,
communities, homes, and workplaces to protect human health and the environmental
integrity of ecosystems. The Agency employs a mix of regulatory programs and
partnership approaches to achieve results in ways that are efficient, innovative, and
sustainable. Ideally, EPA can implement a strategy of preventing pollution at the source;
however, where programs to prevent pollution or ecosystem damage are not viable, EPA
promotes waste minimization, avoidance of impact on habitat, safe disposal, and
remediation.
In managing risk, EPA directs its efforts toward the greatest threats in our communities,
homes, and workplaces, including threats to sensitive populations such as children and
the elderly, and to communities with potential disproportionately high and adverse
environmental and public health effects including minorities and/or low-income
communities. Pound for pound, children breathe more air, drink more water, and eat
more food than adults, and their behavior patterns may increase their exposure to
potential toxics. Even older Americans in good health may be at increased risk from
exposure to environmental pollutants. As people age, their bodies are less able to detoxify
and eliminate toxins. Native Americans represent another segment of the population with
a different risk profile. Their traditional sources for food and ways of life may lead to
higher levels of exposure to certain toxics.
Pesticides Programs
A key component of protecting the health of people, communities, and ecosystems is
identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks presented by the thousands of chemicals on
which our society and economy have come to depend. Toward that end, EPA is investing
$122.4 million in Pesticides Licensing programs in FY 2008. Chemical and biological
pesticides help meet national and global demands for food; provide effective pest control
for homes, schools, gardens, highways, utility lines, hospitals, and drinking water
treatment facilities; and control animal vectors of disease. In accordance with the
provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the
Agency is restructuring the presentation of FIFRA implementation funding and replacing
the Pesticides Registration, Reregi strati on and Field programs with these new programs
in FY 2008:
• Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticides Risk
• Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticides Risk, and
• Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticides Availability
In 2008, as required by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), EPA will continue to
establish a process for periodic review of pesticide registrations with the goal of
completing the process every 15 years. The Agency will also focus its reregi strati on
resources to support the 2008 FQPA deadline for completing non-food use Registration
Eligibility Decisions (REDs).
G/O-21
-------
Toxics Programs
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 1,500 new chemicals and 40 products of
biotechnology that enter the marketplace. This new chemical review process not only
protects the public from the possible immediate threats of harmful chemicals, but it has
also contributed to changing the behavior of the chemical industry, making industry more
aware and responsible for the impact these chemicals have on human health and the
environment.
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 and has assigned
values to 190 chemicals to date.
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. The HPV Chemicals Program
challenges industry to develop chemical hazard data on existing chemicals that it chooses
to "sponsor." EPA will make data publicly available for approximately 1,400 HPV
chemicals sponsored under the program and issue initial risk screening reports for the
highest priority of those chemicals. 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.
The Agency will continue to manage its programs to address specific chemicals and
toxics of concern, including lead, mineral fibers, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT)
chemicals generally. The Lead program is focusing efforts on reducing lead hazards, and
a $1 million investment, as requested for FY 2008, will allow the Agency to promulgate a
final regulation to address lead-safe work practices for renovation, repair and painting
activities in homes with lead-based paint. The program will also continue to improve
methods to reach vulnerable populations and communities with a high concentration of
children with elevated blood-lead levels and emphasize grant-supported activities such as
state-implemented lead-based paint training and certification programs.
EPA's Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) is a competitive grant
program that offers an innovative way for communities to take action to reduce toxic
pollution. Through CARE, communities create local collaborative partnerships that
G/O-22
-------
implement local solutions to reduce releases of toxic pollutants and minimize exposure to
toxic pollutants.
Water Programs
EPA's ecosystem protection programs encompass a wide range of approaches that
address specific at-risk regional areas and larger categories of threatened systems, such as
estuaries and wetlands. Locally generated pollution, combined with pollution carried by
rivers and streams and through air deposition, can accumulate in these ecosystems and
degrade them over time. Large water bodies, such as the Gulf of Mexico, the Great
Lakes, and the Chesapeake Bay, have been exposed to substantial pollution over many
years. Coastal estuaries and wetlands are also vulnerable. As the populations in coastal
regions grow, the challenges to preserve and protect these important ecosystems increase.
Working with stakeholders, EPA has established special programs to protect and restore
these unique resources.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue cooperation with Federal, state and Tribal governments
and other stakeholders to achieve the President's goal, set in 2004, to restore, improve,
and protect three million acres of wetlands by 2009. A $17.2 million request in FY 2008
will support and monitor all 28 NEPs in implementing approved Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs), which identify more than 2,000 priority
actions needed to protect and restore the estuaries.
The Great Lakes program ecosystem is requesting $21.8 million in the FY 2008 budget to
continue support of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration and the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement. The program will monitor ecosystem indicators; support toxics
reduction through contaminated sediment remediation and pollution prevention; protect
and restore habitat; and address strategic issues such as aquatic invasive species and the
need to investigate the decline of Diporeia, a key lower-food web organism. The FY
2008 request to implement the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which supports cleanup of
contaminated sediments, is $35 million. EPA is committed to its long-term goal of 100
percent attainment of dissolved oxygen standards in waters of the Chesapeake Bay and
185,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). In FY 2008, $4.5 million will
bring the Agency closer to improving key priority coastal and ocean issues in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Brownfields
Building the capacity for a community to make decisions that affect their environment is
at the heart of EPA's community-centered work. EPA's efforts to share information and
build community capacity offer the tools communities need to consider the many aspects
of planned development or redevelopment. EPA encourages community development by
providing funds to assist communities with inventory, assessment, and clean up the
lightly contaminated properties ("Brownfields") that lie abandoned or unused. In
addition, along the U.S.-Mexico border, addressing local pollution and infrastructure
deficiencies are priorities for Mexico and the United States under the Border 2012
G/O-23
-------
Agreement. Addressing these challenges requires combining innovative and community-
based approaches with national guidelines and interagency coordination to achieve
results.
Smart Growth
The Smart Growth program works with stakeholders to create an improved economic and
institutional climate for Brownfields redevelopment. Critical issues for Brownfield
redevelopment in FY 2008 include land assembly, development permitting issues,
financing, parking and street standards, and other factors that influence the economic
viability of Brownfields redevelopment. The Smart Growth program removes barriers
and creates incentives for Brownfield redevelopment by changing development standards
that affect the viability of Brownfields redevelopment; and creating cross-cutting
solutions that improve the economic, regulatory and institutional climate for Brownfield
redevelopment.
International Affairs
To sustain and enhance domestic and international environmental progress, the Agency
collaborates with other nations and international organizations to identify, develop, and
implement policy options to address environmental problems of mutual concern. By
assisting developing countries in managing their natural resources and protecting the
health of their citizens, EPA helps reduce transboundary movement of pollution in the air
and in water. EPA also works to include environmental protection provisions and
commitments to effectively enforce environmental laws and regulations in all
international trade agreements negotiated by the United States.
Environmental Justice
EPA is committed to environmental justice for all people, regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income. Toward that end, the Agency will focus its environmental
justice efforts on the following eight priorities:
• Reducing asthma attacks,
• Reducing exposure to air toxics,
• Increasing compliance with regulations,
• Reducing incidence of elevated blood lead levels,
• Ensuring that fish and shellfish are safe to eat,
• Ensuring that water is safe to drink,
• Revitalizing brownfields and contaminated sites, and
• Using collaborative problem-solving to address environmental and public health
concerns.
Research
In order to adequately protect or restore the health of communities and ecosystems,
environmental policy and regulatory decisions must be based on sound science. Strong
G/O-24
-------
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 continue to conduct high priority, multidisciplinary research in
the areas of human health, ecosystems, mercury, global change, pesticides and toxics,
endocrine disrupters, computational toxicology, nanotechnology, and Homeland
Security. The Agency also will cultivate the next generation of environmental scientists
by awarding fellowships to pursue higher education in environmentally related fields and
by hosting recent graduates at its facilities.
In FY 2008, 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. The Agency's
human health risk assessment (HHRA) research program will develop and implement a
process to identify, compile, characterize, and prioritize new scientific studies for science
assessments of criteria air pollutants to assist EPA's air and radiation programs in
determining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Also, the HHRA
research program will complete 16 human health assessments of high priority chemicals
for interagency review or external peer review and deliver revised science assessments
for Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides.
In order to balance human well-being with the need to protect the environment, it is
important to understand the type of services that ecosystems provide, the stressors that
affect these services, and how to successfully optimize the services provided by the
ecosystem as a whole. In FY 2008, the ecosystems protection program will continue
research on the development of decision-support tools for managing resources in ways
that improve their resilience to disturbance, thus reducing the need for future costly
restoration efforts. The program will also use spatial analysis methods to develop options
for maximizing existing ecosystem services and for analyzing tradeoffs among the types
of services that can be achieved.
Computational toxicology research, which facilitates a better understanding of the
relationships between sources of environmental pollutant exposure and adverse
outcomes, will support four key areas in FY 2008:
• Information technology,
• Chemical prioritization and categorization tools,
• Systems biology models, and
• Cumulative risk assessment.
Specifically, initial results for the "ToxCast," will emerge in FY 2008. The "ToxCast" is
the Agency's chemical prioritization research program that offers promise in
revolutionizing the effective and efficient use of animals in toxicology testing schemes.
G/O-25
-------
In addition, modeling research, which now plays a crucial role in practically all areas of
biological research, will begin developing a computational model of the liver by
integrating biological information in order to achieve an improved understanding of how
susceptibility to toxicant exposure depends on environmental, behavioral and genetic
factors, and on age and health status.
Endocrine Disrupters research will continue to develop methods and models to evaluate
the effects associated with exposure to endocrine disrupters as well as continue to
develop improved molecular and computational tools that can be used to prioritize
endocrine disrupting chemicals for screening and testing. Nanotechnology research is
another area of high visibility in FY 2008. Efforts will continue to focus on
nanotechnology's environmental applications and investigate its implications on the
environment, health, and safety.
In FY 2008, continued research in the pesticides and toxics research program will
characterize toxicity and pharmacokinetic profiles of perfluoroalkyl chemicals, examine
the potential for selected perfluorinated telomers to degrade to perfluoroctanoic acid or its
precursors, and develop methods and models to forecast the fate of pesticides and
byproducts from source waters through drinking water treatment systems and ultimately
to the U.S. population.
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.
G/O-26
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Improve environmental performance through ensuring compliance with environmental
requirements by enforcing environmental statutes, 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 remote
environmental stewardship and long-term sustainable outcomes.
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:
• By 2011, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through
enforcement and other compliance assurance activities by achieving a 5 percent increase
in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated by regulated entities, including
those in Indian country. (Baseline to be determined in 2006)
• Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and the Adoption of
other Stewardship Practices that Lead to Sustainable Outcomes. By 2011, enhance public
health and environmental protection and increase conservation of natural resources by
promoting pollution prevention and the adoption of other stewardship practices by
companies, communities, governmental organizations, and individuals.
• Protect human health and the environment on tribal lands by assisting federally-
recognized tribes to: build environmental management capacity; assess environmental
conditions and measure results; and implement environmental programs in Indian
country.
• Conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research on pollution prevention, new technology
development, socioeconomic, sustainable systems, and decision-making tools. By 2011,
the products of this research will be independently recognized as providing critical and
key evidence in informing Agency polices and decisions and solving problems for the
Agency and its partners and stakeholders
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship
Achieve Environmental Protection
FY 2006
Actuals
$759,283.1
$487,509.6
FY 2007
Current
Rate CR
$744,109.2
$499,045.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$734,343.1
$491,948.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$743,831.4
$508,148.3
FY 2008 Pres
Budv.
FY 2007 Pres
Bud
$9,488.3
$16,199.5
G/O-27
-------
through Improved Compliance
Improve Environmental
Performance through Pollution
Prevention and Innovation
Improve Human Health and the
Environment in Indian Country
Enhance Societies Capacity for
Sustainability through Science and
Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$124,170.1
$78,499.8
$69,103.6
3,409.1
FY 2007
Current
Rate CR
$115,775.8
$76,018.8
$53,268.9
3,491.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$113,157.8
$74,073.6
$55,163.0
3,485.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$108,612.8
$74,303.9
$52,766.5
3,481.7
FY 2008 Pres
Budv.
FY 2007 Pres
Bud
($4,545.0)
$230.3
($2,396.5)
-3.9
The Environmental Protection Agency will work to improve the nation's environmental
protection practices and 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 multi-media approaches to environmental stewardship
and safeguarding human health.
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
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 order to meet the Agency's goals, the program's 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.
Further, the Agency's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program uses compliance
assistance and incentive tools to encourage compliance with regulatory requirements and reduce
adverse public health and environmental problems. To achieve compliance, the regulated
G/O-28
-------
community must first understand its obligations and then learn how to best comply with
regulatory obligations.
The Agency's Compliance Monitoring program 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. FY 2008 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 Enforcement program addresses violations of environmental laws, to ensure that violators
come into compliance with Federal laws and regulations. In FY 2008, 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. In FY 2008, EPA will continue to implement its National Compliance and
Enforcement Priorities (NCEP), which address the most widespread types of violations that also
pose the most substantive health and environmental risks. The NCEP list will use statistically
valid noncompliance information developed by Compliance Monitoring. In addition, in FY 2008
EPA anticipates reducing, treating, or eliminating an estimated 550 million pounds of pollutants
building upon our achievements to date in reducing pollution through enforcement settlement
agreements and compliance incentives by an estimated 4.5 billion pounds over the last six fiscal
years.
Maximum compliance requires the active efforts of the regulated community. Evaluation of self-
reporting will occur in order to understand the effectiveness and accuracy of such self-reporting.
Throughout FY 2008, EPA will continue to investigate options for encouraging self-directed
audits and disclosures. Also in FY 2008, EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
program will continue to develop meaningful measures to assess the impact of enforcement and
compliance activities and target areas that pose the greatest risks to human health or the
environment, display patterns of noncompliance, or include disproportionately exposed
populations.
NEPA Federal Review: EPA fulfills its uniquely Federal responsibilities under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act by reviewing and
commenting on other Federal agency Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), and making the
comments available to the public. 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 adverse impacts.
G/O-29
-------
Improving Environmental Performance through Innovation and Pollution Prevention and
Stewardship
Pollution prevention will continue being one of the Agency's primary tools for minimizing and
preventing adverse environmental impacts by preventing the generation of pollution at the
source. 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 2008, through the Pollution Prevention (P2)
program, EPA will promote stronger regional partnerships and geographically tailored
approaches to address unique community problems. Also in FY 2008, 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 (GSN) 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. P2
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.
In FY 2008, through the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP), the Agency
will continue to reduce priority chemicals in wastes. As of August 2006, the NPEP program has
obtained industry commitments for 2.1 million pounds of priority chemical reductions through
2011. Reductions will be achieved primarily through source reduction made possible by safer
chemical substitutes.
Promoting Innovation and Stewardship: In FY 2008, EPA will work to bring about a
performance-oriented regulatory system that develops innovative, flexible strategies to achieve
measurable results; promote environmental stewardship in all parts of society; support
sustainable development and pollution prevention; and foster a culture of creative environmental
problem solving.
The Performance Track (PT) program will improve program reporting, develop and implement
national and regional challenge commitments, and leverage state environmental leadership
programs by aligning PT with 20 state programs. In addition, EPA will sponsor a formal
program evaluation of the program in FY 2008 and FY 2009.
G/O-30
-------
Also in FY 2008, EPA will continue to grow its partnerships and track environmental
performance trends with major manufacturing sectors, such as steel, cement, forest products, and
shipbuilding, plus important non-manufacturing sectors like agribusiness, construction, and
ports. The Agency will address barriers to improved performance, provide sector-specific
"drivers" for continuous improvement and stewardship, and use the partnerships to tackle high
priority environmental issues.
EPA will also continue to promote environmental performance through the Environmental
Results Program (ERP), a state-run program promoting environmental performance and
efficiency through assistance and incentives to both states and businesses. In FY 2008, EPA will
support the growing demand for the ERP program, beyond the 15 States and 10 sectors currently
active in the program.
Finally, EPA will continue the State Innovation Grant (SIG) program in FY 2008, which
provides support to states, allowing them to develop their own innovative approaches, including
flexible permitting, ERP, and environmental leadership programs (e.g. PT). Measurement and
program evaluation also will continue to be priorities.
Building Tribal Capacity
The EPA Indian Policy of 1984 promotes working with federally recognized Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. Under Federal environmental statutes, the Agency will work
to assure 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 Office works to ensure 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 continue to work
to create an environmental presence for each Federally-recognized Tribe.
Provide Access to Environmental Information: EPA will provide the information Tribes need
to meet EPA and Tribal environmental priorities, as well as characterize the environmental and
public health improvements that result from joint actions.
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 FY 2008, the budget provides $56.9 million for GAP grants, which will build Tribal
environmental capacity to assess environmental conditions, utilize available Federal information,
and build an environmental program tailored to Tribes' needs. The grants will develop
environmental education and outreach programs, develop and implement integrated solid waste
management plans, and alert EPA to serious conditions that pose immediate public health and
ecological threats. Through GAP program guidance, EPA emphasizes outcome based results.
G/O-31
-------
Sustainability
EPA has developed and evaluated tools and technologies to monitor, prevent, control, and clean
up pollution throughout its history. Since the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, the Agency has
increasingly focused on preventative and sustainable approaches to health and environmental
problems. EPA's efforts in this area support research specifically designed to address the issue
of advancing sustainability goals - EPA's Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS)
program.
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 FY 2008, EPA's Sustainability research program will embark on a new effort that is aimed at
creating a suite of science-based sustainability metrics that are readily understood by the public.
This work will address both large and small systems. In addition, 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.
FY 2006 PART
• EPA's Pollution Prevention Program, including the Categorical Grant Program,
underwent PART review in FY 2006 and received a "moderately effective" rating.
G/O-32
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2008 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 10
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program 12
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification 14
Radiation: Protection 18
Radiation: Response Preparedness 20
Program Area: Climate Protection Program 22
Climate Protection Program 23
Program Area: Enforcement 26
Forensics Support 27
Program Area: Homeland Security 29
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection 30
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 33
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 37
Program Area: Indoor Air 38
Indoor Air: Radon Program 39
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air 41
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 44
IT / Data Management 45
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 54
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk 56
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk 58
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability 61
Program Area: Research: Clean Air 64
Research: Air Toxics 65
Research: Clean Air 66
Research: Global Change 71
Research: NAAQS 75
Program Area: Research: Clean Water 77
Research: Drinking Water 78
Research: Water Quality 82
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems 87
Human Health Risk Assessment 88
Research: Computational Toxicology 93
-------
Research: Endocrine Disrupter 97
Research: Fellowships 101
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems 104
Program Area: Research: Land Protection 114
Research: Land Protection and Restoration 115
Program Area: Research: Sustainability 119
Research: Economics and Decision Science(EDS) 120
Research: Sustainability 122
Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention 126
Research: Pesticides and Toxics 127
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection 131
Drinking Water Programs 132
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Science & Technology
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$764,737.6
2,432.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$788,274.0
2,431.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$754,506.0
2,405.8
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($33,768.0)
-25.8
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
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
FY 2006
Actuals
$8,036.1
$9,647.9
$2,029.6
$0.0
$61,604.3
$61,604.3
$2,311.9
$3,263.4
$86,893.2
$19,650.5
$13,044.2
$707.8
$12,598.3
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
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$8,259.0
$10,886.0
$2,252.0
$8,388.0
$57,334.0
$65,722.0
$2,120.0
$3,721.0
$92,960.0
$13,104.0
$15,075.0
$21,884.0
$3,702.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($1,000.4)
$613.1
($12.7)
($3,012.0)
$409.5
($2,602.5)
$65.7
$135.1
($2,801.7)
$554.4
$1,889.8
($19,851.2)
$186.2
S&T-l
-------
Program Project
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
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from
Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from
Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing
Pesticides
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
Research / Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
FY 2006
Actuals
$13,306.1
$11,345.1
$578.2
$2,441.4
$18,328.1
$32,692.8
$3,013.8
$49,012.7
$583.9
$759.9
$1,343.8
$4,412.9
$8,841.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$2,631.7
$2,347.0
$4,978.7
$56,300.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$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
$70,239.5
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$2,766.1
$2,820.4
$5,586.5
$0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$25,586.0
$20,738.0
$600.0
$4,000.0
$15,430.0
$40,768.0
$594.0
$66,948.0
$428.0
$788.0
$1,216.0
$3,499.0
$73,859.0
$3,294.0
$2,115.0
$472.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,881.0
$0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($19,665.0)
($3,928.7)
$0.0
$0.0
$198.6
($3,730.1)
($1,485.0)
($24,880.1)
($14.2)
($40.7)
($54.9)
($769.0)
$3,619.5
$3,294.0
$2,115.0
$472.0
($2,766.1)
($2,820.4)
$294.5
$0.0
S&T-2
-------
Program Project
Research: Clean Air
Research: Air Toxics
Research: Clean Air
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
Human Health
Ecosystems
Research: Human Health and
Ecosystems (other activities)
Subtotal, 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
Toxic Research and Prevention
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
FY 2006
Actuals
$18,535.1
$0.0
$17,495.2
$65,242.5
$101,272.8
$52,015.9
$48,233.9
$100,249.8
$33,663.5
$13,264.5
$11,234.3
$15,609.9
$0.0
$0.0
$169,126.0
$169,126.0
$242,898.2
$12,101.5
$2,487.6
$2,761.9
$27,042.4
$32,291.9
$28,343.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,274.2
$0.0
$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
$0.0
$0.0
$161,312.7
$161,312.7
$228,248.5
$10,552.8
$2,494.6
$0.0
$21,404.9
$23,899.5
$26,223.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$81,054.0
$16,908.0
$0.0
$97,962.0
$48,548.0
$56,454.0
$105,002.0
$38,856.0
$15,103.0
$10,131.0
$8,438.0
$72,055.0
$72,761.0
$230.0
$145,046.0
$217,574.0
$10,737.0
$0.0
$0.0
$22,478.0
$22,478.0
$24,795.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($12,274.2)
$81,054.0
($548.4)
($65,455.6)
$2,775.8
($694.5)
($534.2)
($1,228.7)
$4,367.5
$119.9
$1,049.8
$55.0
$72,055.0
$72,761.0
($161,082.7)
($16,266.7)
($10,674.5)
$184.2
($2,494.6)
$0.0
$1,073.1
($1,421.5)
($1,428.7)
S&T-3
-------
Program Project
Water: Human Health Protection
Drinking Water Programs
Subtotal, Drinking Water Programs
FY 2006
Actuals
$3,101.9
$3,101.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,243.1
$3,243.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,416.0
$3,416.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$172.9
$172.9
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
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$17,710.5
$8,036.1
$25,746.6
89.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$19,126.4
$9,259.4
$28,385.8
92.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$19,388.0
$8,259.0
$27,647.0
89.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$261.6
($1,000.4)
($738.8)
-3.1
Program Project Description:
The CAIR emissions allowance trading programs build upon the successful and cost-effective
Acid Rain SO2 cap-and-trade program created in 1990. 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 (802) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions in more than a decade.
Reductions in these emissions will lower both PM2.5 and ozone.
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 ozone in downwind states. Under CAIR, annual emissions are permanently capped,
and there is an additional seasonal NOX cap for states that contribute significantly to transported
ozone pollution. These reductions will be substantial and cost-effective in many areas the
reductions are large enough to meet the air quality standards however some areas may need to
take additional local actions.
All of the affected states have indicated to EPA that they intend to achieve the mandated
reductions primarily by controlling power plant emissions through an EPA-administered
interstate cap-and-trade program. When fully implemented, CAIR is projected to reduce 862
emissions from electrical power generation sources in the covered states by over 70 percent and
NOX emissions by over 60 percent from 2003 levels. By enabling states to cost-effectively
reduce air pollutants from power plants, CAIR will protect public health and the environment
without interfering with the steady flow of affordable energy for American consumers and
businesses.
On May 15, 2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), the first-ever Federal
rule to reduce and permanently cap mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. CAMR
establishes "standards of performance" limiting mercury emissions from new and existing coal-
fired power plants in two phases with caps. In the first phase, which begins in 2010, mercury
emissions nationwide will be reduced to 38 tons by taking advantage of "co-benefit"
S&T-6
-------
reductions—that is, mercury reductions achieved by reducing 862 and NOX emissions 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.
Other important features of this landmark rule include: stringent emission monitoring and
reporting requirements, a model cap-and-trade program that states can adopt to achieve and
maintain their mercury emissions budgets, and significant penalties for noncompliance. CAMR
also creates an EPA-administered market-based allowance trading program that states may join
by adopting the model trading rule in state regulations or promulgating regulations that mirror
the necessary components of the model trading rule.
EPA is responsible for managing the Clean Air Status and Trends Network CASTNET, a
national long-term atmospheric deposition monitoring network established in 1987 that 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 National Atmospheric
Deposition Program (NADP) and other networks, CASTNET's long-term datasets and data
products are used to determine the efficacy of national emission control programs through
monitoring geographic patterns and temporal trends in ambient air quality and atmospheric
deposition in rural areas of the country. Maintaining a robust long-term atmospheric deposition
monitoring network is critical for the accountability of the Acid Rain Program, CAIR, and other
programs for controlling transported air pollutants.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008 EPA will:
• Continue to provide litigation program support for CAIR and CAMR: Conduct legal,
technical, and economic analyses to support timely implementation of these rules;
continue assessing regulatory impacts on the US economy, environment, small business,
and local communities.
• Continue to assist states with CAIR implementation: Provide technical assistance to
states in implementing state plans and rules for CAIR. Assist states in resolving issues
related to source applicability, emissions monitoring and reporting, and the compliance
supplement pool as well as provide technical support. Required emissions monitoring
and reporting for CAIR annual and ozone-season NOX programs begins in 2008.
• Work with states and tribes on CAMR implementation: EPA will work with states and
Tribes on emissions monitoring provisions. Required mercury monitoring and reporting
for CAMR begins in 2009. Work will begin to develop a mercury deposition baseline to
assess and validate the effectiveness of CAMR's mercury control program. EPA also
will assist the states and Tribes which elect to participate in the EPA-administered
interstate CAMR allowance trading program to establish allowance allocations and
implement reconciliation procedures.
• Continue modifying data systems and operating infrastructure for CAIR/CAMR:
Effective and efficient operation of these programs depends critically upon further
S&T-7
-------
development of the e-GOV infrastructure supporting the Acid Rain electronic allowance
trading and emissions reporting systems. Data systems must be modified for mercury
emissions reporting.
• Ensure accurate and consistent results for the program: Successful air pollution control
and trading programs require accurate and consistent monitoring of emissions from
affected sources. Work on performance specifications and investigate monitoring
alternatives and methods to improve the efficiency of monitor certification and emissions
data reporting, especially for mercury emissions and sources that are new to market-
based control programs.
• Assist states considering regional programs for Electric Generating Units (EGUs) 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).
• In FY 2008, 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 for testing operational
performance under realistic field conditions. The upgraded site equipment, reconfigured
network and improved geographic coverage will help ensure CASTNET's continued
viability and enhance the monitoring capacity to support ongoing and future
accountability needs, particularly relating to interstate pollutant transport.
Working with other Federal agency partners, EPA will continue developing a new, coordinated
network for monitoring atmospheric mercury that is scientifically credible and with sites
strategically located to meet CAMR accountability needs (e.g., in source-impacted areas). The
program assessment capability, also to be developed through intra- and inter-agency partnerships
and cooperation, will focus on the mercury "chain-of-accountability"— specifically, how
changes in mercury emissions affect human health and wildlife.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to work closely with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and industry in the development,
implementation, and commercialization of mercury continuous emissions monitoring systems
(CEMS) and other source monitoring capability. In addition, the program will continue to
provide 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
2008, the program will continue analyzing the costs and benefits of the Acid Rain Program for
inclusion in NAPAP's Integrated Assessment Report.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards Federal program, PARTed in 2005, received a
rating of "adequate." EPA is working to 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. The Air Quality Grants and
Permitting Program, also PARTed in 2005, received a rating of "ineffective." The Agency has
updated current grant allocation processes to ensure resources are properly targeted and
developing measures of program efficiency. In 2003, OMB assessed the Acid Rain program
through the PART process and gave it a rating of "moderately effective." EPA is working to
S&T-8
-------
develop a measure of program efficiency that takes into consideration the full cost of the
program.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Tons of sulfur dioxide
emissions from electric
power generation
sources
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
7,000,000
FY 2007
Target
7,500,000
FY 2008
Target
8,000,000
Units
Tons
Reduced
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent change in
average sulfur
deposition and mean
ambient sulfate
concentrations
reduced.
FY 2006
Actual
No Target
Established
FY 2006
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2007
Target
29
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent change in
average nitrogen
deposition and mean
total ambient nitrate
concentrations
reduced.
FY 2006
Actual
No Target
Established
FY 2006
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2007
Target
10
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percentage
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
sulfates, 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.
EPA tracks the change in nitrogen and sulfur deposition and ambient nitrate and sulfate
concentrations triennially with the next report date planned for FY 2010.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,000.4) A reduction in funding to the CASTNET will begin a phase down from
"upgrade" of the network systems to operations and maintenance. The reduction also reflects
expected decreased federal costs for CAIR/CAMR implementation as states gain knowledge
and development of technology tool is completed and deployed.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661 f).
S&T-9
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$93,053.0
$9,647.9
$102,700.9
706.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$88,065.6
$10,272.9
$98,338.5
709.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$90,490.0
$10,886.0
$101,376.0
700.7
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$2,424.4
$613.1
$3,037.5
-8.3
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 to identify the most cost-effective control options available.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
As part of implementing the 8-hour ozone and particulate matter 2.5 (PM^.s) standards, EPA will
continue to provide state and local governments with substantial assistance in developing SIPs
and implementing the conformity rule during this period. In FY 2008, 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. 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 also will 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-
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. In FY 2006, basic and/or enhanced vehicle I/M testing was being
performed in over 30 states with technical and programmatic guidance from EPA. In FY 2008,
EPA will continue to assist states in bridging operating programs toward the future.
EPA will continue to assist state, tribal, and local agencies in implementing and assessing
effectiveness of national clean air programs via a broad suite of analytical tools. (For more
information visit: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/).
S&T-10
-------
The NAAQS Federal program, PARTed in 2005, received a rating of "adequate." EPA is
working to 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. The Air Quality Grants and Permitting Program, also
PARTed in 2005, received a rating of "ineffective." EPA is working to update current grant
allocation processes to ensure resources are properly targeted, and developing measures of
program efficiency.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in
population-weighted
ambient concentration
of fine particulate
matter (PM-2. 5) in all
monitored counties
from 2003 baseline.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
2
FY 2007
Target
3
FY 2008
Target
4
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in
population-weighted
ambient concentration
of ozone in monitored
counties from 2003
baseline.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
5
FY 2007
Target
6
FY 2008
Target
8
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 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$613.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
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, SAFETEA-LU of
2005.
S&T-ll
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$24,332.1
$2,029.6
$26,361.7
140.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,513.7
$2,264.7
$27,778.4
144.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$24,711.0
$2,252.0
$26,963.0
141.8
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($802.7)
($12.7)
($815.4)
-2.4
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. (For more information visit:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/residriskpg.html)
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to 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.
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; guidance on the benefits of voluntary mobile source
control programs; and other education and outreach materials.
S&T-12
-------
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.
The Air Toxics program, re-assessed by OMB in 2004 through the PART process, received a
rating of "adequate." EPA is working on improving monitoring systems to fill data gaps and get
a better assessment of actual population exposure to toxic air pollution.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
noncancer risk)
emissions of air toxics
from 1993 baseline.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2006
Target
58
FY 2007
Target
58
FY 2008
Target
59
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
cancer risk) emissions
of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2006
Target
34
FY 2007
Target
35
FY 2008
Target
35
Units
Percentage
Performance targets for reduction of toxicity weighted emissions are also supported by work
under the Federal Stationary Source Regulations program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$12.7) 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.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
S&T-13
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$61,604.3
$61,604.3
293.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$68,324.5
$68,324.5
295.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$65,722.0
$65,722.0
295.2
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,602.5)
($2,602.5)
0.0
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 all of these sources to reduce the
production of air pollution. 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.
The Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles was announced at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002. EPA's role in this partnership will be to assist
developing countries in the development and implementation of action plans for the adoption of
clean fuel standards and cleaner vehicle requirements.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to 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. EPA will also begin implementing the Renewable Fuels
Standards (RFS) rule scheduled to be promulgated in 2007, and will begin the development of
several more actions required by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005. Some of these EPAct
actions include a study of the changes in emissions of air pollutants and air quality, and a fuel
system harmonization study which is expected to be a complex study and will be completed in
coordination with DOE.
S&T-14
-------
In FY 2008, a number of regulatory actions will be under development or completed. EPA will
promulgate new standards for locomotives and marine diesel engines, as well as new standards
for large commercial ships. 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 2008, EPA will also develop proposals for on-board-diagnostic (OBD) standards and an in-use
compliance program for nonroad diesel engines, certification procedures and test cycles for
world harmonized motorcycle standards, designation of U.S. coastal areas as SOx Emission
Control Areas (SECA), and new aircraft NOx standards that would align Federal rules with
international standards. EPA will also continue its technology reviews for highway diesel 2007-
2010 standards and nonroad diesel standards.
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 2008, 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 2,600 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
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 begin implementation of 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.
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.
S&T-15
-------
Through the WSSD partnerships with developing countries EPA will continue addressing the
threat to human health and the environment from motor vehicles in developing countries. EPA
will continue to focus its efforts on two priorities: completing the global elimination of lead
from gasoline (30 countries still use this fuel); and reducing sulfur in diesel and gasoline, while
concurrently introducing cleaner vehicle technologies. Fuel sulfur reductions are a precondition
for using cleaner vehicle technologies. Together, these steps will enable dramatic and cost-
effective reductions in emissions of particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx, a
precursor to ozone), yielding tremendous health benefits in developing countries. Many of these
emissions reductions (e.g., in Mexico, China, and India) will also reduce pollution that is
transported across our borders and the northern hemisphere into the United States, and will thus
yield important air quality, public health, and economic benefits to the United States.
The Mobile Sources program was assessed in 2004 through the PART process, and rated it as
"moderately effective." EPA is collecting data to better monitor efficiency improvements, and is
systematically analyzing and evaluating regulations to ensure they effectively achieve the
greatest benefits.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Tons of PM- 10
Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
74,594
FY 2007
Target
87,026
FY 2008
Target
99,458
Units
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Limit the increase of
CO emissions (in tons)
from mobile sources
compared to a 2000
baseline.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
1.01
FY 2007
Target
1.18
FY 2008
Target
1.35
Units
Million Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Millions of Tons of
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOx) Reduced since
2000 Reduced from
Mobile Sources
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
2.03
FY 2007
Target
2.37
FY 2008
Target
2.71
Units
Million Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Millions of Tons of
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
1.03
FY 2007
Target
1.20
FY 2008
Target
1.37
Units
Million Tons
S&T-16
-------
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.
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 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$104.0) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (-$106.3) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT systems.
• (+$213.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$14.0) This reduction reflects an Agency wide effort to reduce international travel.
• (+$200.0) This increase supports the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) initiative. This funding will address global elimination of lead in gasoline and
the reduction of sulfur in diesel and gasoline.
• (-$3,000.0) This reduction reflects completion of the Renewable Fuel Standard rule and
a shift to implementation in FY 2008 in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f); MVICS Act; AMF Act of 1988; NHSD Act; NEP Act; EPC Act;
and EPA of 2005.
S&T-17
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$11,301.6
$2,311.9
$1,938.3
$15,551.8
95.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,648.6
$2,054.3
$2,323.3
$15,026.2
96.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,186.0
$2,120.0
$2,373.0
$14,679.0
88.6
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($462.6)
$65.7
$49.7
($347.2)
-8.0
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, using 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008 EPA, in cooperation with 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 Superfund Remedial
Project Managers and On-Scene Coordinators, the public, industry, Tribes and state and local
governments. EPA will also conduct radioanalytical and mixed waste analyses in support of
Regional site assessments, cleanups and response activities.
EPA is on track through its ongoing work to meet its 2011 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. EPA will continue to track
S&T-18
-------
progress on routine program indicators such as preparedness and response capability for
radiological incidents.
Performance Targets:
EPA is developing new outcome-oriented performance measures for this program in preparation
for a 2007 PART assessment. The program will have new performance measures to report in FY
2009. EPA will continue to track progress on routine program indicators such as preparedness
and response capability for radiological incidents.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$66.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$0.3) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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-19
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$2,374.4
$3,263.4
$5,637.8
41.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,688.7
$3,585.9
$6,274.6
42.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,928.0
$3,721.0
$6,649.0
42.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$239.3
$135.1
$374.4
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 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 and demonstrate their ability to fulfill
EPA responsibilities in the field, using mobile analytical systems, and in the fixed labs; and in
order to provide the necessary mix of rapid and accurate radionuclide analyses in environmental
matrices.1
Also in FY 2008, the 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 last accessed 1/8/2007.
S&T-20
-------
Performance Targets:
EPA is on track through its ongoing work to meet its 2011 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. The Agency is developing
new outcome-oriented strategic and annual performance measures for this program in
preparation for a 2007 PART assessment. The program will have new performance measures to
report in FY 2009. EPA will continue to track progress on routine program indicators such as
preparedness and response capability for radiological incidents.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$12.7) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (+$122.4) 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-21
-------
Program Area: Climate Protection Program
S&T-22
-------
Climate Protection Program
Program Area: Climate Protection Program
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$83,693.9
$19,650.5
$103,344.4
210.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$91,843.3
$12,549. 6
$104,392.9
214.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$87,927.0
$13,104.0
$101,031.0
212.5
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($3,916.3)
$554.4
($3,361.9)
-1.6
Program Project Description:
EPA manages the Clean Automotive Technology (CAT) and the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen
programs which are designed to help 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. (For more information visit:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology).
The emphasis of Clean Automotive Technology program work will be research and collaboration
with the automotive, trucking, and fleet industries. Through cooperative research and
development agreements (CRADA), EPA plans to continue demonstrating its unique hydraulic
hybrid technology and advanced clean-engine technologies 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. EPA's goal is to achieve initial
commercialization of urban delivery trucks in 2010.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Clean Automotive Technology Program will:
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the Clean Automotive Technology Program's high-
efficiency, clean combustion E-85/M-85 alcohol engine.
• Continue the transfer EPA's advances in hydraulic hybrid technologies (promote
adoption of technology and technical assistance) of, providing continuity in EPA's
commitments to the truck and fleet industry for development and deployment.
• Continue field tests currently underway and planned for 2008 for hydraulic-hybrid and
clean engine technologies achieving better fuel economy than the typical baseline
vehicles,
S&T-23
-------
• Finish developing performance measures that demonstrate the program's greenhouse gas
reduction contributions.
In FY 2008, the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Program will:
• Continue to coordinate with key stakeholders through the public/private California Fuel
Cell Partnership to facilitate the commercialization of innovative technologies.
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 program's efforts. EPA is working to complete an assessment and comparison of the
potential benefits and efforts of the Clean Automotive technology program, and to develop better
performance measures that more clearly link to greenhouse gas reduction potential in the near
term.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric tons of
carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the
buildings sector.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
26.5
FY 2007
Target
29.4
FY 2008
Target
32
Units
MMTCE
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric tons of
carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the
industry sector.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
58
FY 2007
Target
62.6
FY 2008
Target
68
Units
MMCTE
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric tons of
carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the
transportation sector.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
1.2
FY 2007
Target
1.6
FY 2008
Target
1.5
Units
MMTCE
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$50.0) This increase provides funding to support program evaluation which assesses
the effectiveness of the Clean Automotive Technology Program's high-efficiency, clean
combustion E-85/M-85 alcohol engine.
S&T-24
-------
• (+$504.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$0.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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 Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$13,044.2
$3,600.9
$16,645.1
101.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$13,185.2
$4,184.2
$17,369.4
107.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,075.0
$2,310.0
$17,385.0
105.8
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,889.8
($1,874.2)
$15.6
-2.0
Program Project Description:
The Forensics Support program provides specialized scientific and technical support for the
nation's most complex 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 to provide 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.1
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Efforts to stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement in FY 2008 will include the
refinement of successful multi-media inspection approaches, use of customized laboratory
methods to solve unusual enforcement case problems, and applied research and development for
both laboratory and field applications. In response to 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 also will evaluate the scientific basis and/or technical
enforceability of select EPA regulations that may impact program activities.
In FY 2008, 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.
1 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/index.html.
S&T-27
-------
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
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 2006
Actual
890
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
550
Units
million
pounds
One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions2. The Agency is exploring methodologies to
strengthen 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 five years, these pollutant reductions are projections based on
settlement agreements entered each fiscal year. One or two cases can have a significant effect on
the end-of-year results.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$352.6 / +7.5 FTE) This increase reflects a transfer to NEIC's Science and
Technology budget reflecting a shift in NEIC workload from Superfund related projects
to projects which support other media.
• (-$98.5) This decrease will reduce available funding for laboratory equipment at the
NEIC.
• (+$3.5) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (+$1,632.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; EPCRA.
2 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
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 2006
Actuals
$4,717.4
$13,306.1
$985.1
$19,008.6
47.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$7,242.7
$45,251.0
$1,571.6
$54,065.3
59.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$7,787.0
$25,586.0
$1,857.0
$35,230.0
59.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$544.3
($19,665.0)
$285.4
($18,835.3)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program provides resources to coordinate and support protection of the nation's critical
water infrastructure from terrorist threats and other catastrophic events. Reducing risk in the
water sector requires a multi-step approach to: determine risk through vulnerability, threat, and
consequence assessments; reduce risk through security enhancements; prepare to effectively
respond to and recover from incidents; and measure the water sector's progress in risk reduction.
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
programs. 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.
(See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity for more information.)
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to support the water security initiative (formerly known as 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 2008, the
Agency in collaboration with our water sector security stakeholders will continue our efforts to
develop, implement and initiate tracking of national measures related to homeland security
critical infrastructure protection activities. All of these efforts support the Agency's
responsibilities and commitments under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, as defined
within the Water Sector Specific Plan, which includes, for example, specific milestones for work
related to the water security initiative and metric development.
Water Security Initiative
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 the initiative is to
S&T-30
-------
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 in high threat cities.
The water security initiative consists of five general components: (1) enhanced physical security
monitoring, (2) water quality monitoring, (3) routine and triggered sampling of high priority
contaminants, (4) public health surveillance, and (5) consumer complaint surveillance. Recent
simulation 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."
The water security initiative is intended to demonstrate the concept of an effective contamination
warning system that drinking water utilities in high threat cities of all sizes and characteristics
could adopt. It will provide a comprehensive protocol that would enable utilities to most
effectively - in terms of budgetary resources and detection capability - deploy contamination
warning systems. Through the pilots, EPA will analyze the design and implementation issues
over a range of system types including: different sized water systems; different type of water
delivery systems (open versus closed); and different types of treatment (chlorinated versus non-
chlorinated). The pilots also involve building the analytical capability and capacity necessary to
support the contaminant-specific sampling by leveraging existing laboratory infrastructure for
processing high priority biological, chemical, and radiological threat agents in water.
Resources appropriated to date have enabled EPA to establish and calibrate an initial pilot for the
water security initiative. Interim guidance will be issued in 2007. Requested FY 2008 funding
for the program will continue to support the existing pilot, and will support the establishment of
additional pilots. Thus, all planned pilots will be underway by 2008. In the out years, EPA will
focus on calibrating the contaminant warning systems and conduct extensive and thorough
evaluations of each pilot. The Agency also will continue to prepare and refine a series of
guidance documents for water utilities, on designing, deploying, and testing contamination
warning systems based on additional lessons-learned from the pilots.
Each of the system's five components will be subjected to extensive validation in the field. In
the absence of an actual contamination event, much of the evaluation of the pilots will occur
through reviewing, for example, the success of conducting sample analysis in response to a
trigger. EPA will quickly share information learned from the pilots with other water utilities,
rather than waiting for the pilots' conclusion before disseminating key results. Work will be
carried out in collaboration with other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland
Security (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 16,000 publicly-owned treatment works.
S&T-31
-------
EPA will continue to provide special assistance to high-priority drinking water systems under the
Water Alliance for Threat Reduction (WATR). In FY 2008, EPA will work to ensure that water
sector utilities have tools and information to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from
terrorist attacks, other intentional acts, and natural disasters. The following preventive and
preparedness activities will be implemented for the water sector in collaboration with DHS and
states' homeland security and water sector 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;
• Provide expert technical assistance in preparedness and response for national special
security events and incidents;
• Disseminate tools and provide technical assistance to ensure that water utilities and
emergency responders react rapidly and effectively to intentional contamination and other
incidents. Tools include information on high priority contaminants, incident command
protocols, sampling and detection protocols and methods, and treatment options;
• To support WATR, EPA will continue to conduct additional training sessions for water
sector systems serving over 100,000 people; and
• Support the establishment of mutual aid agreements among utilities to improve recovery
times.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's protect human health objective. Currently, there are
no performance measures specific to this program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$20,000.0) This decrease reflects resources to maintain the existing water security
initiative pilot and to complete deployment of remaining pilot systems under the
initiative.
• (+$333.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA; CWA; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002;
EPCRA.
S&T-32
-------
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 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 2006
Actuals
$1,659.2
$32,692.8
$40,400.0
$74,752.0
148.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,328.7
$44,498.1
$49,774.9
$97,601.7
165.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,381.0
$40,768.0
$45,280.0
$89,429.0
167.6
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$52.3
($3,730.1)
($4,494.9)
($8,172.7)
2.0
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 assemble and evaluate private sector tools and capabilities so that efficacious 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Agency homeland security research, the radiological monitoring program, and biodefense
research will continue to strengthen response capabilities, and clarify roles and responsibilities to
ensure an effective response. It will also 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 2008 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-33
-------
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 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 also will
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 begin evaluating toxicity, infectivity, mechanisms of action, and other
risk characterization information for biological contaminants in order to develop
dose/response relationships that can assist the development of cleanup goals.
• EPA's Homeland Security research program plans to have several projects and proposals
reviewed by independent scientific advisory bodies during FY 2008. 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 during 2008.
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 and near real-time stationary
monitors. EPA also is responsible for maintenance of both fixed and mobile monitors, and
personnel and asset readiness for radiological emergency responses, which includes participating
in emergency response situations and providing technical expertise and support.
S&T-34
-------
• The Agency will continue to upgrade and enhance the RadNet air monitoring network.
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 pre-existing system of 60
conventional air samplers. Fixed stations will operate in conjunction with 40 deployable
monitors. From FY 2006 through FY 2008, EPA expects to install over 100 monitors
providing near real-time radiation monitoring coverage for over two-thirds of the 100
most populous U.S. cities. 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, improving officials'
ability to make decisions about protecting public health during an incident. The
improved system will help ensure preparedness for radiological incidents.
Improve National Radiological Lab Capacity and Capability:
In FY 2008, 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. The Agency will initially assess capability and capacity of
ten 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 continue to
address critical gaps in efficacy test methodology and knowledge of microbial resistance. In
addition to bacteria, in FY 2008, EPA will address threatening viruses and other emerging
pathogens in environmental media. Thus far, decontamination test methods for viruses have
only begun to be addressed. EPA will propose the development and evaluation of efficacy test
protocols for products designed to control viruses in the environment during decontamination.
In order to improve the Agency's ability to respond to events involving biothreat agents, EPA
will increase the number of standardized and validated methods for evaluating the efficacy of
decontamination agents. Critical efforts in FY 2007 through FY 2008 will focus on evaluating
additional non-spore forming threat agents and viruses, novel antimicrobial formulations such as
gases and sprays, and additional surface materials (concrete, wood etc.). EPA will continue to
seek independent third-party analysis for method validation efforts through recognized standard
setting organizations. As new methods are developed, statistical modeling for various
biodefense scenarios will be critical to the development of science based performance standards.
Microbial persistence, resistance to antimicrobial agents, and an understanding of biofilm
environments are also key factors in evaluating the efficacy of decontamination tools.
S&T-35
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no PART
measures for this specific program/project. However, in FY 2008 the program plans to
accomplish its goals of completing and delivering 100% of its planned outputs in support of 1)
the efficient and effective clean-up and safe disposal of decontamination wastes, 2) the water
security initiative, 3) the rapid assessment of risk and the determination of clean-up goals and
procedures following contamination, and 4) the establishment of the National Laboratory
Response Network. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of
providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$229.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$6.3) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$4,000.0) This reflects a reduction to EPA's planned decontamination research.
However, the reduction will not affect ongoing research projects.
• (+$46.1) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (+$0.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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-36
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$8,845.1
$3,013.8
$10,800.9
$534.7
$23,194.5
3.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,268.9
$2,079.0
$11,385.1
$594.2
$20,327.2
3.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,345.0
$594.0
$7,870.0
$594.0
$15,403.0
3.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$76.1
($1,485.0)
($3,515.1)
($0.2)
($4,924.2)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program involves activities to ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and operational and that certain physical security measures are in place to help safeguard staff in
the event of an emergency. These efforts also protect the capability of EPA's vital infrastructure
assets.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Agency will continue to provide physical security at specific laboratory
facilities, including homeland security support activities.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,485.0) This reduction reflects substantial progress in completing initial vulnerability
mitigations at EPA's most vulnerable facilities, allowing a reduction in the pace of
physical security upgrades and vulnerability assessments.
Statutory Authority:
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604 and 629).
S&T-37
-------
Program Area: Indoor Air
S&T-38
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$7,418.0
$583.9
$8,001.9
37.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,519.2
$442.2
$5,961.4
42.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,429.0
$428.0
$5,857.0
39.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($90.2)
($14.2)
($104.4)
-3.0
*Resources under this program/project were formerly captured under Indoor Air: Asthma (74), Indoor Air:
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (75), and Indoor Air: Schools and Workplaces Programs (77)
Program Project Description:
The Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, NV is the
only remaining Federal, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-traceable radon
laboratory. The R&IE radon laboratory supports EPA's radon program by providing exposure
services to local, state, and Federal radon programs and to privatized radon proficiency
programs. The R&IE radon laboratory also distributes and analyzes radon test kits for
community-based environmental justice partners with a focus on tribes.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA's radon laboratory will continue to provide: radon exposure services to
support local, state, and Federal radon programs; radon laboratory inter-comparisons and device
verification exposures to support privatized radon proficiency programs; and test kits and
analyses for community-based environmental justice partners. As part of its environmental
justice efforts, EPA will distribute 2,000 radon kits to our network of partner organizations and
community-based environmental justice partners and analyze 100% of returned radon kits.
The Indoor Air program received a rating of "moderately effective" during a 2005 PART
assessment. The Indoor Air program is not regulatory; instead, EPA works toward its goal by
conducting research and promoting appropriate risk reduction actions through voluntary
education and outreach programs. The Agency will continue to focus on making efficiency
improvements and plans to improve transparency by making all aspects of the State Indoor
Radon Grant (SIRG) program performance/results data available to the public via our website or
other easily accessible means.
S&T-39
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of additional
homes (new and
existing) with radon
reducing features
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
180,000
FY 2007
Target
190,000
FY 2008
Target
225,000
Units
Homes
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Total Cost (public and
private) per future
premature cancer
death prevented
through lowered
radon exposure.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
7007
FY 2006
Target
450,000
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Dollars
In FY 2008, EPA expects 225,000 additional homes to have radon reducing features bringing the
cumulative number of U.S. homes with radon reducing features to over 2 million. EPA estimates
that this cumulative number will result in approximately 800 future premature cancer deaths
prevented (each year these radon reducing features are in place). EPA will track progress against
the efficiency measure in the table above triennially with the next report date in FY 2009.
These program goals are a result of the total funding the program area receives through EPM,
S&T, and SIRG funding.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$14.2) 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:
CAA Amendments of 1990; (IRAA), Section 306; 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.
S&T-40
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$19,023.2
$759.9
$19,783.1
71.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$23,464.3
$828. 7
$24,293.0
68.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$21,440.0
$788.0
$22,228.0
68.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,024.3)
($40.7)
($2,065.0)
-0.6
*Resources under this program/project were formerly captured under Indoor Air: Asthma (74), Indoor Air:
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (75), and Indoor Air: Schools and Workplaces 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will conduct 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 Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of public that
is aware of the asthma
program's media
campaign.
FY 2006
Actual
33
FY 2006
Target
>20
FY 2007
Target
>20
FY 2008
Target
>20
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Additional health care
professionals trained
annually by EPA and
its partner on the
environmental
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
2000
FY 2007
Target
2000
FY 2008
Target
2000
Units
Number
S&T-41
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
management of asthma
triggers.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Annual Cost to EPA
per person with
asthma taking all
essential actions to
reduce exposure to
indoor environmental
asthma triggers.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
8.38
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Estimated annual
number of schools
establishing indoor air
quality programs based
on EPA's Tools for
Schools guidance.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
1200
FY 2007
Target
1100
FY 2008
Target
1100
Units
Number
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Average cost to EPA
per student per year in
a school that is
implementing an
Indoor Air Quality
plan.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
2
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Dollars
The Indoor Air program, rated by OMB as "moderately effective" during a 2005 PART
assessment will continue to focus on making efficiency improvements in response to
recommendations in the PART assessment. EPA will track progress against the efficiency
measures included in the tables above triennially with the next planned report date in FY 2009.
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 2008, bringing the total number to over
4.9 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.
S&T-42
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$40.7) 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.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990; RGIAQR Act; Title IV of the SARA of 1986.
S&T-43
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
S&T-44
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$98,871.4
$4,412.9
$130.9
$38.8
$16,646.2
$120,100.2
515.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$96,807.2
$4,268.0
$175.9
$32.5
$17,120.4
$118,404.0
488.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$91,019.0
$3,499.0
$177.0
$34.0
$16,338.0
$111,067.0
488.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($5,788.2)
($769.0)
$1.1
$1.5
($782.4)
($7,337.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The IT/Data Management Science & Technology (S&T) program manages and coordinates the
Agency's Science and Technology Enterprise Architecture and develops analytical tools (e.g.,
Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound environmental decision-making. The program
implements the Agency's E-Government (E-Gov) responsibilities; designs, develops and
manages the Agency's Internet and Intranet resources including the Integrated Portal. The
program 1) 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, 2) provides a
secure, reliable, and capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture
which includes data standardization, integration, and public access, 3) manages the Agency's
Quality System ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal
guidelines, and 4) supports regional information technology infrastructure, administrative and
environmental programs, and telecommunications. These functions are integral to the
implementation of Agency information technology programs and systems like the Exchange
Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX) and Permit Compliance System (PCS). Agency
offices rely on the IT/Data Management program and its capabilities to develop and implement
tools for ready access to accurate and timely data. Recent partnerships include portals projects
with the Offices of Research and Development and Air and Radiation to access scientific and
program data.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA's Science and Information Technology community will continue focusing on
S&T-45
-------
the Agency's Technology Initiative1 and fulfilling the Agency's E-Gov commitments. The
Agency's IT/Data Management program forms the core of this effort with its focus on building
and implementing the Agency's Integrated Portal and Enterprise Content Management System
(ECMS), developing Environmental Indicators, and continuing to deploy enterprise-wide IT
infrastructure solutions.
Integral to the successful achievement of the Technology Initiative and the broader IT/Data
Management efforts is the quality of the data and services. In FY 2008, EPA's IT/Data
Management program will continue to provide methods to manage the quality of environmental
data collection, generation, and use. The primary goal of the EPA Quality System is to ensure
that its S&T 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.
In FY 2008, EPA expects savings from the first phase of the Network Optimization Project effort
of key IT services and solutions. The services included in this effort include email services,
access to data files, telephone communications, and Enterprise Content Management System
(ECMS). The end result will be changes to the Agency's IT environment including the ability to
manage key IT services, use the power of competition to control costs in a highly competitive
environment, and hold vendors and contractors accountable for providing consistently excellent
services.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$81.1) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$850.1) This change reflects the Agency working to streamline IT consolidation. This
reduction is an aggregate estimate. The final distribution by program will be determined
when the Network Optimization Project is completed.
1 Office of Environmental Information's (OEI) FY 2006 Technology Initiative has three major components: 1) Building on its
Analytical Capacity and Indicators work, OEI will uncover and fill data gaps, and develop response capacity; 2) Using the portal
and Exchange Network, OEI will increase the integration of quality data, streamline transactions to foster collaboration, reduce
the data entry burden, and improve decision making; and 3) OEFs Readiness to Serve initiative will build capacity and
infrastructure to allow more EPA employees to telecommute or work safely and securely in the field.
S&T-46
-------
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD and DAA; TSCA; FIFRA;
FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA;
FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA.
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 2006
Actuals
$336,980.6
$8,841.7
$30,871.3
$769.6
$366.1
$66,365.6
$444,194.9
375.1
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 2008
Pres Bud
$303,728.0
$73,859.0
$26,931.0
$901.0
$490.0
$74,956.0
$480,865.0
415.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$8,967.9
$3,619.5
($1,499.9)
($15.8)
($9.3)
$1,011.3
$12,073.7
-22.7
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 2008 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) 131491, Greening the Government through Federal Fleet
Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3149.htm
S&T-49
-------
and Transportation Efficiency and EO 131232, Greening the Government through Efficient
Energy Management.
Lastly, EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order
(EO) 13 ISO3 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 strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,577.0) Provides additional resources for increases in rent costs.
• (+$2,159.4) Provides additional resources for increases in utility costs.
• (+$362.5) Provides additional resources for increases in security costs.
• (+$25.2) Provides additional resources for increases in Transit Subsidy.
• (-$504.6) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
Statutory Authority:
FPASA; PBA; Annual Appropriations Act; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive
Orders 10577 and 12598; United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal
Facilities Report; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3123.htm
3 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
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 and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$39,406.5
$2,631.7
$42,038.2
380.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$39,767.6
$2,766.1
$42,533.7
327.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($39,767.6)
($2,766.1)
($42,533.7)
-327.8
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), EPA offices and states
have reliable methods to measure and monitor pesticide residues in food and in the environment.
Beginning in FY 2008, these resources will be presented according to descriptions that better
reflect the Agency's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) mandate and
aligned with the Agency Strategic Plan. These description titles are: Protect Human Health
from Pesticide Risk, Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of
Pesticide Availability.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources previously presented in this program project are now presented within three new
program projects and are distributed as outlined in the Explanation of Change section below.
Please see the descriptions for program projects: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk,
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability for
detailed descriptions of the FY 2008 activities and performance.
Performance Targets:
Please see the narratives for program projects: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk,
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability for
detailed descriptions of the FY 2008 activities and performance.
S&T-52
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 Presidents Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,549.0 7-8.6 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Protect
Human Health from Pesticide Risk program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides program's base resources and does not reflect
a change in program resources, activities, or activity levels from what would have
otherwise been presented under this program project.
• (-$995.8 7-5.5 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Protect the
Environment from Pesticide Risk program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides program's base resources and does not reflect
a change in program resources, activities, or activity levels from what would have
otherwise been presented under this program project.
• (-$221.3 7-1.2 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Realize the
Value of Pesticide Availability program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides program's base resources and does not reflect
a change in program resources, activities, or activity levels from what would have
otherwise been presented under this program project.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; and FQPA.
S&T-53
-------
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$54,507.5
$2,347.0
$56,854.5
460.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$51,814.6
$2,820.4
$54,635.0
458.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($51,814.6)
($2,820.4)
($54,635.0)
-458.7
Program Project Description:
The Pesticide Reregistration and Registration Review programs are 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 program activities by validating environmental
and analytical chemistry methods to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), EPA offices, and states have reliable methods
to measure and monitor pesticide residues in food and in the environment. The laboratories, in
cooperation with industry, state and other EPA laboratories, develop multi-residue analytical
methods to allow enforcement agencies to test for several different chemicals using one test.
Beginning in FY 2008, these resources will be presented according to descriptions that better
reflect the Agency's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) mandate and
align with the Agency Strategic Plan. These description titles are: Protect Human Health from
Pesticide Risk, Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources previously presented in this program project are now presented within three new
program projects and are distributed as outlined in the Explanation of Change section below.
Please see the descriptions for program projects: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk,
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability for
detailed descriptions of the FY 2008 activities and performance.
Performance Targets:
Please see the narratives for program projects: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk,
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability for
detailed descriptions of the FY 2008 activities and performance.
S&T-54
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 Presidents Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,579.4 7-9.5 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Protect
Human Health from Pesticide Risk program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Review/Reregi strati on program's base resources and does not reflect a change
in program resources, activities, or activity levels from what would have otherwise been
presented under this program project.
• (-$1,015.4 1-6.1 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Protect
the Environment from Pesticide Risk program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Review/Reregi strati on program's base resources and does not reflect a change
in program resources, activities, or activity levels from what would have otherwise been
presented under this program project.
• (-$225.6 1-1.4 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Realize the
Value of Pesticide Availability program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Review/Reregi strati on program's base resources and does not reflect a change
in program resources, activities, or activity levels from what would have otherwise been
presented under this program project.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA.
S&T-55
-------
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$62,514.0
$3,294.0
$65,808.0
488.5
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$62,514.0
$3,294.0
$65,808.0
488.5
Program Project Description:
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section 3(c)(5), states that the
Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with
labeling and common practices the product "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment." Further, FIFRA defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment" as "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment. EPA has restructured its
program projects in order to align resource requests and resource presentation with the program's
mandate. This program project 1) links resources with FIFRA's mandate to protect human
health from unreasonable pesticide risks, 2) aligns with EPA's 2006-2011 Agency Strategic Plan,
and 3) comprises the human health activities formerly described in the Pesticides: Pesticides:
Re view/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides and the Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
program projects.
EPA's Pesticides program screens new pesticides before they reach the market and ensures that
pesticides already in commerce are safe. As directed by FIFRA, the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and the Food Quality Act of 1996 that amended FIFRA and FFDCA,
EPA is responsible for registering and reregistering pesticides to protect consumers, pesticide
users, workers who may be exposed to pesticides, children, and other sensitive populations. To
make regulatory decisions and establish tolerances or maximum allowable pesticide residues on
food and feed, EPA must balance the risks and benefits of using the pesticide, consider
cumulative and aggregate risks, and ensure extra protection for children.
Research for the Pesticide program supports the goal of protecting human health through three
pesticide laboratories: 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 develop and
validate environmental and analytical chemistry methods to ensure the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA), USGS, EPA offices, and states have reliable methods to measure and
monitor pesticide residues in food and in the environment. The laboratories, in cooperation with
industry, state and other EPA laboratories, develop multi-residue analytical methods to allow
enforcement agencies to test for several different chemicals using one test.
S&T-56
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2008, the Agency will continue to protect human health by evaluating residue analytical
methods for detecting pesticide residues in food and feed, ensuring suitability for monitoring
pesticide residues and enforcement of tolerances. This will be accomplished by developing and
validating multi-residue pesticide analytical methods for food, feed and water for use by other
Federal (USDA Pesticide Data Program and FDA) and state laboratories, and subsequently the
program office. The methods will help estimate human health risks by operating the National
Pesticide Standard Repository and conducting chemistry and efficacy testing for antimicrobials.
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). Under the Plant-Incorporated Protectant (PIP) method validation program, work
will continue on evaluating several novel molecular-based methods.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Some of this program's
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
realizing benefits in that the program's safety review prevents dangerous pesticides from
entering the marketplace.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 Presidents Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,579.4 \ +9.5 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides:
Re view/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides program's base resources, including payroll
and FTE, and does not reflect new resources, or program activities that would have been
presented under the previous program project structure.
• (+$1,549.0 \ +8.6 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides:
Registration of New Pesticides program's base resources and does not reflect new
resources, or program activities that would have been presented under the previous
program project structure.
• (+$163.3) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$2.3) This increase reflects minor shifts in workforce support.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA.
S&T-57
-------
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$41,750.0
$2,115.0
$43,865.0
320.5
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$41,750.0
$2,115.0
$43,865.0
320.5
Program Project Description:
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section 3(c)(5), states that the
Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with
labeling and common practices the product "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment." Further, FIFRA defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment" as "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment." EPA has restructured its
program projects in order to align resource requests and resource presentation with the program's
mandate. This program project 1) links resources with FIFRA's mandate to protect the
environment from unreasonable pesticide risks, 2) aligns with EPA's 2006-2011 Agency
Strategic Plan, and 3) comprises the environmental protection activities formerly described in the
Pesticides: Pesticides: Review/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides and the Pesticides:
Registration of New Pesticides program projects.
Along with assessing the risks that pesticides pose to human health, EPA conducts ecological
risk assessments to determine potential effects on plants, animals, and ecosystems. EPA works
to protect ecosystems, particularly the plants and animals that are not targets of the pesticide, as
well as satisfy additional responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).1 As directed
by FIFRA, EPA must determine that a pesticide is not likely to harm the environment, and may
impose risk mitigation measures such as restricting uses, denying uses, or requiring monitoring
of environmental conditions, such as effects on water sources.2 In making its regulatory
decisions, the Agency considers both the risks and the benefits derived from the use of the
pesticide.
Research for the Pesticide program supports the goal of protecting the environment from
pesticides use through three pesticides laboratories: an analytical chemistry laboratory and a
1 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 sections 7(a)l and 7 (a)2; Federal Agency Actions and Consultations, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)). Available at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act of 1973 internet
site: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa.htnrfLnk07.
2 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of
Registration (7U.S.C. 136a). Available online at: www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/fifra.pdf.
S&T-58
-------
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 develop and validate environmental and analytical chemistry methods to ensure the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), USGS, EPA offices, and states have reliable
methods to measure and monitor pesticide residues in food and in the environment. The
laboratories, in cooperation with industry, state and other EPA laboratories, develop multi-
residue analytical methods to allow enforcement agencies to test for several different chemicals
using one test.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2008, the Agency will support the protection of the environment by developing methods and
conducting analyses to make more informed decisions regarding pesticide exposures and risk to
the environment and by operating the National Pesticide Standard Repository to support Federal
and State labs involved in enforcement activities. Under the Plant-Incorporated Protectant (PIP)
method validation program, work will continue on evaluating several novel molecular-based
methods.
The laboratories will also support the protection of the environment by evaluating residue
analytical methods used for detecting pesticide residues in environmental matrices, such as
water, soil and sediment. Evaluating residue analytical methods will give the program
confidence in assessing the results generated by the registrant and submitted to the Agency,
which is required by the pesticide registration guidelines of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Evaluating residue analytical methods will also assist the Agency
in developing and validating multi-residue pesticide analytical methods for environmental
matrices for use by other Federal and state laboratories to estimate environmental risks.
The laboratories also respond to urgent pesticide program needs for analytical chemistry support
to address specific short-term, rapid turnaround issues of high priority. The labs cooperate with
regional activities related to analysis of environmental samples for select pesticides or other
environmental contaminants related to pesticide production or disposition and develop exposure
data for dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other persistent contaminants of
environmental concern, to support Agency environmental risk assessments.
Additionally, the labs conduct product performance evaluations of antimicrobials to remove
inefficacious products and eliminate unnecessary source effluent affecting the environment as
well as provide data to support use of effective tools for remediation efforts and testing capacity
for environmental monitoring of microbial populations (due to overt or unintentional
contamination). Another activity involves conducting validation services on methods used to
detect DNA and/or proteins for PIPs in major agricultural commodities such as corn, soybeans,
potatoes, cotton, etc.
EPA's laboratories will continue to provide quality assurance and technical support and training
to EPA regional offices, state laboratories, and other Federal agencies that implement FIFRA.
Additionally, the laboratories provide EPA's enforcement programs with highly specialized
S&T-59
-------
pesticide chemistry services to support enforcement cases, including the more difficult to analyze
older pesticides.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple performance measures. Some of the pesticide
program's 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.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 Presidents Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,015.4 \ +6.1 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides:
Re view/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides program's base resources, including payroll
and FTE, and does not reflect new resources, or program activities that would have been
presented under the previous program project structure.
• (+$995.8 \ +5.5 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides:
Registration of New Pesticides program's base resources and does not reflect new
resources, or program activities that would have been presented under the previous
program project structure.
• (+$105.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (- $1.7) This decrease reflects minor shifts in workforce support.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA.
S&T-60
-------
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$12,114.0
$472.0
$12,586.0
90.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$12,114.0
$472.0
$12,586.0
90.4
Program Project Description:
Within the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the definition of
"unreasonable adverse effects on the environments" expands upon the concept of protecting
against unreasonable risks to man or the environment, by adding "taking into account the
economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide..." An
example of actions that lead to these societal benefits are exemptions granted under FIFRA
Section 18. In the event of an emergency, FIFRA Section 18 provides EPA the authority to
temporarily exempt certain pesticides uses from registration requirements. This program project,
which aligns with the 2006-2011 Agency Strategic Plan, is restructured for FY 2008 and now
comprises the activities formerly described in the Pesticides: Pesticides: Review/Reregi strati on
of Existing Pesticides and the Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides program projects, as
they relate to the value of pesticide availability.
EPA must ensure that such emergency uses will not present an unreasonable risk to the
environment. EPA's timely review of emergency exemptions has avoided an estimated $1.5
billion in crop losses per year, resulting from new pests on crops when exemptions are necessary
while progress is made towards full registration. In such cases, EPA's goal is to complete the
more detailed and comprehensive unreasonable risk review conducted for pesticide registration
within three years.
The statute clearly recognizes that there will be societal benefits beyond protection of human
health and the environment from the pesticide registration process that it establishes. Section 3 of
FIFRA also authorizes EPA to register "me-too" products; that is products that are identical or
substantially similar to already-registered products. The entry of these new products, also known
as "generics," into the market can cause price reductions resulting from new competition and
broader access to products. These price declines generate competition that provides benefits to
farmers and consumers. For example, an estimated $900 million in termite damage is avoided
each year through the availability of effective termiticides. While some effective termiticides
have been removed from the market due to safety concerns, EPA continues to work with industry
to register safe alternatives that meet or exceed all current safety standards and offer a high level
of protection. The program project is in alignment with the 2006-2011 Agency Strategic Plan.
S&T-61
-------
The Pesticides program supports the goal of realizing the value of pesticides through three
pesticide laboratories: 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
program activities by validating environmental and analytical chemistry methods to ensure that
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
EPA offices, and states have reliable methods to measure and monitor pesticide residues in food
and in the environment. Additionally, the laboratories provide support to ensure that certain
pesticide products are efficacious. The laboratories, in cooperation with industry, state and other
EPA laboratories, develop multi-residue analytical methods to allow enforcement agencies to test
for several different chemicals using one test.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2008, the Agency will continue to realize the benefits of pesticides by operating the National
Pesticide Standard Repository and conducting chemistry and efficacy testing for antimicrobials.
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). Under the PIP method validation program, work will continue on evaluating
several novel molecular-based methods.
The laboratories support the program by evaluating residue analytical methods for detecting
pesticide residues in food and feed ensuring suitability for monitoring pesticide residues and
enforcement of tolerances and by operating the National Pesticide Standard Repository which
distributes analytical standards to Federal and state laboratories involved in enforcement
activities. The labs develop and validate multi-residue pesticide analytical methods for food,
feed and water for use by other Federal (USDA Pesticide Data Program and FDA) and state
laboratories. These laboratories generate residue data that is then used by the program office to
estimate human health risks. The labs are prepared to respond to urgent program needs for
analytical chemistry support and special studies to address specific short-term, rapid turnaround,
priority issues.
In addition to residue methods, the labs provide method validation services for genetically
modified organism (GMO) products (plant-incorporated protectants). They also develop data to
support FIFRA section 18 uses for new chemicals where efficacy data is non-existent
(particularly biothreat agents, including B. anthracis, or emerging hospital pathogens), as well as
evaluate the product performance of antimicrobials used to control infectious pathogens in
hospital environments. The labs develop new test methods for novel uses or emerging
pathogens, including biothreat agents, in order to provide guidelines for efficacy data for public
health claims and guidance for registration and to provide technical support and training on
testing methods and procedures.
S&T-62
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Some of this program's
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
realizing benefits in that the program's safety review prevents dangerous pesticides from
entering the marketplace.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 Presidents Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$225.6 \ +1.4 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides:
Re view/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides program's base resources, including payroll
and FTE, and does not reflect new resources, or program activities that would have been
presented under the previous program project structure.
• (+$221.3 \ +1.2 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides:
Registration of New Pesticides program's base resources and does not reflect new
resources, or program activities that would have been presented under the previous
program project structure.
• (+$23.3) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1.8) This increase reflects minor shifts in workforce support.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA.
S&T-63
-------
Program Area: Research: Clean Air
S&T-64
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$18,535.1
$18,535.1
55.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,274.2
$12,274.2
52.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($12,274.2)
($12,274.2)
-52.6
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
both national- and community-scale assessments as well as residual risk. Research also provides
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.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA is integrating the Research: NAAQS and Research: Air Toxics programs in FY 2008 to take
advantage of research synergies and better enable multi-pollutant considerations. The activities
are described within the Research: Clean Air program.
Performance Targets:
EPA is integrating the Research: NAAQS and Research: Air Toxics programs in FY 2008. The
activities are described within the Research: Clean Air program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$12,274.2 / -52.6 FTE) EPA is integrating the Research: NAAQS and Research: Air
Toxics programs in FY 2008 under a new program heading titled Research: Clean Air.
This change reflects the transfer of the Research: Air Toxics program's base resources to
the new heading and does not reflect a reduction in resources for the Agency's air
research.
Statutory Authority:
CAA.
S&T-65
-------
Research: Clean Air
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 2006
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$81,054.0
$81,054.0
236.2
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$81,054.0
$81,054.0
236.2
Program Project Description:
EPA's air research provides the scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to protect the air
all Americans breathe. The program supports the Agency's implementation of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), especially the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), l which set limits on
how much tropospheric ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and lead are allowed in the atmosphere. The program also conducts research to reduce
risks from hazardous air pollutants, also known as air toxics. The program is guided by a series
of National Academy of Sciences reports2 and Agency research plans,3 which outline research
needs, the program's strategy to meet those needs, and measures for evaluating the program's
performance.
The scientific findings from this program inform Air Quality Science Assessments (AQSAs),
formerly Air Quality Criteria Documents (AQCDs), which are periodic reports that synthesize
the science relevant to setting and implementing NAAQS. Preparation of AQSAs is funded by
the Human Health Risk Assessment program.
A subcommittee of EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory
committee comprised of qualified, independent scientists and engineers—conducted an external
review of the particulate matter and tropospheric ozone research programs in 2005. The
subcommittee reported that the program "has resulted in significant reductions in scientific
uncertainty in critical areas...the outputs produced by research to support these reductions in
uncertainty have provided a sound basis for subsequent improvements in public health."4 The
BOSC recommended the continued reshaping of the air research programs into one program
based on a multi-pollutant concept that will consider the source-to-health-impact paradigm to
achieve more effective and efficient control and mitigation strategies. The Agency is
1 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/.
The most recent report is: NRC, Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter: IV. Continuing Research
Progress. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press (2004). See http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10957.html.
3 EPA, Particulate Matter Research Program Multi-Year Plan. Washington, D.C.: EPA (2003). See
http://epa.gov/osp/myp/pm.pdf. EPA, Air Toxics Research Multi-Year Plan. Washington, D.C.: EPA (2003). See
http://epa.gov/osp/myp/airtox.pdf
4 EPA, Board of Scientific Counselors, Particulate Matter and Ozone Research Program. Washington, D.C.: EPA
(2005), 4. See http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/pm0508rpt.pdf.
S&T-66
-------
implementing this recommendation in FY 2008 by integrating the Research: Air Toxics and
Research: NAAQS programs to form the Research: Clean Air program.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Several external scientific reviews have recommended that EPA manage its air research in an
integrated multi-pollutant or "one atmosphere" manner. To address these recommendations,
EPA is integrating the research plans and budget structures of its particulate matter, tropospheric
ozone, and air toxics research. The Agency is merging the Research: NAAQS and Research: Air
Toxics programs to form the Research: Clean Air program in FY 2008.
The program will continue research to understand the sources of air pollution and methods for
controlling emissions.5 It will investigate methods for measuring and characterizing emissions
from human-made and biogenic sources. The Agency, states, and Tribes use this work to
improve emission inventories, which estimate air pollutant emissions by source in specific areas
of the country. States must periodically revise their inventories to comply with the CAA. These
methods also support source apportionment, which traces pollutants measured in ambient air to
specific sources based on chemical or structural markers unique to those sources. EPA will also
research, develop, and assess the cost and performance of technologies capable of reducing
emissions of multiple pollutants from single sources.
FY 2008 research also will continue to study Americans' exposure to air pollution. The program
will continue an interagency agreement with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to develop the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling
system, which forecasts air quality in the U.S. at local and national scales.6 States use CMAQ's
modeling capabilities to evaluate their State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which specify how
they will meet the requirements of the CAA. The program also will study atmospheric
chemistry, such as the formation of secondary pollutants through in-atmosphere reactions, and
conduct field research to correlate ambient measurements of air pollution with actual human
exposure to those pollutants.
This program also will continue epidemiological, clinical, and toxicological studies of air
pollution's health effects.7 Research will focus on determining the relative toxicity of particles'
different sizes and chemical components; understanding how emissions from different particle
sources affect health; the degree to which lifestyle, age, and diseases like diabetes and asthma
affect susceptibility to air pollution; and the mechanisms inside the human body by which air
pollution causes harm. EPA also will investigate air pollution's effects on cardiopulmonary,
nervous, reproductive, and immune systems and on development during pregnancy and infancy.
The program makes extensive use of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program's
competitive, peer-reviewed grants. In FY 2008, STAR will continue funding five-year grants to
particulate matter research centers at five universities.8 STAR also will continue to fund a ten-
5 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/.
6 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/asmdnerl/.
7 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/research/cleanair.html.
For more information, see http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/outlinks.centers/centerGroup/19/.
S&T-67
-------
year grant to the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis-Air Pollution Study,9 which is
examining how long-term exposure to particulate matter influences heart disease in 8,700
volunteers, and a five-year grant to the Health Effects Institute,10 a nonprofit chartered in 1980 to
conduct independent research on the health effects of air pollution. Other grants will fund efforts
to link atmospheric model data with epidemiological data of air pollution's health effects.
In FY 2008, the program will emphasize research on air pollution near roads. Research will
focus on topics such as measuring and characterizing emissions near roads; the extent of human
exposure to and the health effects from those pollutants; and the effectiveness of potential
controls, such as barriers.
The BOSC recommended the maintenance of a periodic, formalized process for assessing EPA's
research and development programs' primary stakeholders' perceptions of and satisfaction with
its role in the source-to-health outcome process. The program is in the process of developing a
survey instrument to help assess client satisfaction and attitudes regarding its support.
OMB rated the Research: NAAQS program as "adequate" in the program's second PART
review, which was conducted in calendar year 2005 under the program title "National Ambient
Air Quality Standards Research."11 OMB rated the program "results not demonstrated" in its
first review, conducted in calendar year 2003. The improvement is attributable primarily to the
development of two new long-term goals: assessing the links between sources of air pollution
and human health and reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standard-setting and air
quality management decisions. The program is currently determining methods for demonstrating
long-term and annual progress toward these goals. OMB identified developing a means to
measure the program's efficiency, improving budget-performance integration, and convening
annual review meetings as follow-up actions. To this end, the program is reviewing how other
Federal research programs measure annual progress toward reduction in scientific uncertainty, is
engaging the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for assistance in identifying an outcome-
oriented efficiency measure, and formed a workgroup with EPA's BOSC to discuss long-term
measurement of the program's research.
Performance Targets:
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 2006
Actual
10
FY 2006
Target
10
FY 2007
Target
30
FY 2008
Target
50
Units
Percent
9 For more information, see http://depts.washington.edu/mesaair/.
10 For more information, see http://www.healtheffects.org/.
1: For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv.10001137.2005.html.
S&T-68
-------
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 2006
Actual
94
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
In 2008, the program plans to meet its goal of completing 50% of a hierarchy of air pollutant
sources based on the risk they pose to human health. Additionally, the program plans to
accomplish its goal of completing 100% of its planned actions related to the program long-term
goal of reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standard-setting and air quality
management decisions. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of
developing a better understanding and characterization of human health and environmental
outcomes related to clean air.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$65,455.6 \ +191.9 FTE) EPA is integrating the Research: NAAQS and Research: Air
Toxics programs in FY 2008. This increase is the incoming transfer of the Research:
NAAQS program's base resources and does not reflect new resources.
• (+$12,274.2 \ +52.6 FTE) EPA is integrating the Research: NAAQS and Research: Air
Toxics programs in FY 2008. This increase is the incoming transfer of the Research: Air
Toxics program's base resources and does not reflect new resources.
• (+$4,485.3) This increase supports research in three areas: 1) aiding the development of
emission inventories, which estimate air pollutant emissions by source in specific areas of
the country. States must periodically revise their inventories to comply with the CAA.
2) Supporting an interagency agreement with NOAA that develops the Community
Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system, which forecasts air quality in the U.S.
at local and national scales. States use CMAQ's modeling capabilities to evaluate their
State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which specify how they will meet the requirements of
the CAA. The third (3) area is research on air pollution near roads, including
measurement and characterization of emissions near roads, study of the extent of human
exposure to and the health effects from emissions near roads, and research on the
effectiveness of potential controls, such as barriers.
• (+$254.1) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$75.0) This increase provides funds for program evaluations in EPA's air research.
S&T-69
-------
• (+$15.3) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (-8.3 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. 1.9 FTE of this reduction
reflects efficiencies gained in EPA's research and development IT and administrative
activities. 6.4 FTE of this reduction is in lower priority air toxics research. These
reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in
carrying out its programs.
• (-$576.8) This technical adjustment realigns workforce support costs (such as capital
equipment and repairs and improvement) across the research program to better reflect FY
2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (-$740.7) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (-$171.3) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or
contract management services.
• (-$16.7) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
Statutory Authority:
CAA.
S&T-70
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$17,495.2
$17,495.2
40.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$17,456.4
$17,456.4
35.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$16,908.0
$16,908.0
32.6
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($548.4)
($548.4)
-2.7
Program Project Description:
EPA's global change research focuses on understanding the effects of global change (particularly
climate change and variability) 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 tools
that enable resource managers and policymakers to more effectively consider global change
issues in decision-making.
The program's activities are coordinated with other Federal agencies' climate change research
through the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).1 The Agency plans the program's
research to support EPA's mission and CCSP's strategic plan.2 The program is also guided by a
research strategy3 and multi-year plan, which is currently being revised.4 These documents
outline research needs, the strategy to meet those needs, and measures for evaluating
performance.
A subcommittee of EPA's research oversight body, the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC),
conducted a review of the entire program in calendar year 2005. The subcommittee reported that
the program "has provided substantial benefits to the nation and that it is on course to make
significant further contributions."5 For more findings, see
http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/glob0603rpt.pdf.
For more information, see http://www.climatescience.gov/.
2 U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
Washington, D.C.: CCSP (2003).
3 U.S. EPA, Research Strategy of the Global Change Research Program. Washington, D.C.: EPA (2000). See
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/glblstrtgv.pdf.
4 The Global Change Research Program's Multi-Year Plan is currently being revised. The prior Plan (2003 version)
is available on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/global.pdf.
5 U.S. EPA, Board of Scientific Counselors, Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Review of the Office of
Research and Development's Global Change Research Program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Final Report. Washington, D.C.: EPA (2006), 6. See http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/glob0603rpt.pdf.
S&T-71
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates periodic scientific assessments of
climate change.6 In FY2008, EPA will continue its participation in the interagency CCSP and
complete two CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Products7 for which EPA is the lead Federal
agency: product 4.4, "Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems
and resources," and product 4.6, "Analyses of the effects of global change on human health and
welfare and human systems." EPA is coordinating product 4.4 with the Department of Energy
(DOE), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and
product 4.6 with DOE, NASA, NOAA, and the National Institutes of Health (Nffl).
In FY 2008, the program will also contribute to eight products led by other Federal agencies:
product 3.2, "Climate projections based on emissions scenarios for long-lived radiatively active
trace gases and future climate impacts of short-lived radiatively active gases and aerosols;"
product 3.4, "Abrupt climate change;" product 4.2, "State-of-knowledge of thresholds of change
that could lead to discontinuities (sudden changes) in some ecosystems and climate-sensitive
resources;" product 4.3, "The effects of global change on agriculture, biodiversity, land, and
water resources;" product 4.5, "Effects of climate change on energy production and use in the
United States;" product 5.1, "Uses and limitations of observations, data, forecasts, and other
projections in decision support for selected sectors and regions;" product 5.2, "Best practice
approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in
decisionmaking;" and product 5.3, "Decision support experiments and evaluations using seasonal
to interannual forecasts and observational data."
The program will enhance computer models that can simulate how global change may affect
U.S. air quality.8 This work is supported by modeling of potential changes in energy and
transportation technologies in various regions and sectors of the U.S.9 Together, these efforts
will help air quality resource managers make informed decisions about how to respond to global
change's effects on air quality.
The global change research program makes extensive use of the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) program's competitive, peer-reviewed grants. In FY 2008, STAR'S global change
component will focus on global change's potential effects on U.S. air quality.10 The program
also will partner with the Department of Agriculture and NASA to fund studies on how climate
change, climate variability, and changing land use may affect invasive species. STAR will fund
studies of global change's potential effects on aeroallergens such as pollen and spores.
Another priority for the program is the study of the effects of global change on corals.11 It will
evaluate South Florida reefs to develop quantitative tools for characterizing coral health and to
6 See 15 USC §2936.
7 For more information, see http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/.
8 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/nerl/goals/global/.
9 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/apb/greengas.htm.
10 For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2006/2006 star gcaq.html.
11 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ged/resprog dw.htm.
S&T-72
-------
study the relationship between global change and coral condition. The program will study how
changes in water temperature and ultraviolet radiation affect corals and their symbionts.
Additionally, the program will continue work in FY 2008 on developing an inventory of climate-
sensitive decisions in specific regions of the U.S. in an effort to help support the creation of more
effective decision support strategies. EPA also plans to cosponsor with NOAA a National
Research Council study titled "Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support" to
develop a framework for organizing and evaluating decision support activities related to climate
change.
OMB rated the Research: Global Change program as "adequate" in the program's first PART
review, which was conducted in calendar year 2006 under the program title "Global Change
Research." OMB identified strengthening performance measures and definition of the program's
framework and mission, developing a means to measure the program's efficiency, and improving
budget-performance integration as follow-up actions. To this end, the program is reviewing how
other Federal research programs measure annual progress toward reduction in scientific
uncertainty, is engaging the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for assistance in identifying
an outcome-oriented efficiency measure, and formed a workgroup with EPA's BOSC to discuss
long-term measurement of the program's research. The Administration has identified climate
change science—particularly support for CCSP's strategic goals and CCSP Synthesis and
Assessment Products—as a FY 2008 research and development budget priority.12
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent progress
toward completion of a
framework linking
global change to air
quality.
FY 2006
Actual
65
FY 2006
Target
60
FY 2007
Target
75
FY 2008
Target
85
Units
Percent
In 2008, the program plans to accomplish its goal of completing and delivering 100% of its
planned outputs. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of
providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems, with regard to global change.
12 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology
Policy, FY 2008 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities. Washington, D.C.: OMB (2006), 6.
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2006/m06-17.pdf.
S&T-73
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1.4) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (-$420.5) As a result of this adjustment, in FY 2008 the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) program will award approximately two instead of three grants to universities and
nonprofits to study how global change may influence aeroallergens such as pollen and
mold. EPA will continue to fund its critical research needs in global change, including
production of CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Products, and will meet critical
performance commitments.
• (-2.7 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. 0.2 FTE of this reduction
reflects efficiencies gained in EPA's research and development IT and administrative
activities and will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in
carrying out its programs.
• (-$47.4) This technical adjustment realigns workforce support costs (such as capital
equipment and repairs and improvement) across the research program to better reflect FY
2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (-$39.5) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$25.1) 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.
• (-$14.9) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (-$2.4) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
Statutory Authority:
USGCRA; NCPA.
S&T-74
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$65,242.5
$65,242.5
186.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$65,455.6
$65,455.6
191.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($65,455.6)
($65,455.6)
-191.9
*In FY 2006, Program/Project Research: Paniculate Matter (B4) and Program/Project Research: Tropospheric
Ozone (B9) were eliminated and Program/Project Research: NAAQS (H6) 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. Research focuses on PM in
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, including research on speciation.
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. In addition, the program develops 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.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA is integrating the Research: NAAQS and Research: Air Toxics programs in FY 2008 to take
advantage of research synergies and better enable multi-pollutant considerations. The activities
are described within the Research: Clean Air program.
Performance Targets:
EPA is integrating the Research: NAAQS and Research: Air Toxics programs in FY 2008. The
activities are described within the Research: Clean Air program.
S&T-75
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$65,455.6 / -191.9 FTE) EPA is integrating the Research: NAAQS and Research: Air
Toxics programs under a new program heading titled Research: Clean Air. This change
reflects the transfer of the Research: NAAQS program's base resources to that new
heading and does not reflect a reduction in resources for the Agency's air research.
Statutory Authority:
CAA.
S&T-76
-------
Program Area: Research: Clean Water
S&T-77
-------
Research: Drinking Water
Program Area: Research: Clean Water
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Enhance Research to Support Clean and Safe Water
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$52,015.9
$52,015.9
195.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$49,242.5
$49,242.5
208.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$48,548.0
$48,548.0
207.2
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($694.5)
($694.5)
-1.4
Program Project Description:
The goal of EPA's Drinking Water research program is to develop leading-edge research
products that other EPA programs and clients use in implementing the 1996 Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) Amendments.1 In pursuit of this goal, the research program directly supports
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 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); and develops improved
technologies for cost-effective control of these risks. The program also investigates the impact
of distribution systems, including aging infrastructure, on drinking water quality, and develops
tools to protect source waters.
Research is directed by several peer-reviewed research strategies2'3 and guidance from external
experts.
4,5,6,7
The Agency also maintains a Drinking Water Research Program Multi-Year Plan
1 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, Public Law 104-182. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/sdwa.html.
2 U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Research Plan for Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection By-
Products in Drinking Water. EPA 600-R-97-122, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1997).
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Research Plan for Arsenic in Drinking Water. EPA 600-R-98-042,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1998).
4 National Research Council. Classifying Drinking Water Contaminants for Regulatory Consideration.
Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press (2001).
National Academies of Science. From Source Water to Drinking Water: Workshop Summary. Washington, D.C.:
The National Academies Press (2004).
6 National Research Council. Indicators for Waterborne Pathogens. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies
Press (2004).
7 National Research Council. Public Water Supply Distribution Systems: Assessing and Reducing Risks—First
Report. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press (2005).
S&T-78
-------
(MYP) that outlines steps for meeting these needs and annual performance goals and measures
for evaluating progress. The Agency is currently revising the drinking water MYP to reflect
anticipated science and regulatory needs in FY 2008 and beyond. These plans are subjected to
rigorous peer review9 and address those problems deemed most pressing in the area of drinking
water quality (R&D Criteria: Quality, Relevance, Performance).
In 2005, the Drinking Water research program underwent a program-wide review by the Board
of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a Federal advisory committee comprised of qualified,
independent scientists and engineers,10 which 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). The Drinking Water research
program is adopting specific BOSC recommendations, including researching newly identified,
unregulated disinfection by-products and continuing to plan anticipatory drinking water research.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 including developing tools to manage the nation's aging drinking
water infrastructure, and the protection of drinking water sources, while continuing to support
the SDWA-mandated 6-year review of regulated contaminants. The research conducted reflects
a progressive shift in the program from addressing single contaminants toward development of
treatment strategies, exposure and analytical methods, and effects information that can be applied
to classes of contaminants in the context of the complete drinking water hydrological cycle from
source to tap. Research started in FY 2007 under the "Water Infrastructure for the 21st Century"
initiative, will continue in 2008 to develop the science and engineering to improve and evaluate
promising innovative technologies and techniques to increase the effectiveness and reduce the
cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement of aging and failing drinking water distribution
systems.
Key FY 2008 activities planned include:
• Report on advanced condition assessment for drinking water mains;
• Report on molecular microarrays for detection of non-pathogenic bacteria and bacterial
pathogens in drinking water source waters;
• Epidemiology studies on alternative disinfection processes and their byproducts;
8 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Drinking Water Research Program Multi-Year Plan. Washington, D.C.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/mvp.htm.
9 Science Advisory Board. Review of EPA 's 2003 Draft Drinking Water Research Program Multi-Year Plan
(2005). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/sab-05-008.pdf.
10 Board of Scientific Counselors. Review OfThe Office Of Research And Development's Drinking Water Research
Program At The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/dwl027rpt.pdf
S&T-79
-------
• State-of-the-science report on real time early warning systems for source water
protection;
• Synthesis of information on arsenic removal technologies;
• Improved method(s) for CCL-related chemicals for use in Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulations;
• Epidemiology study on the illness rate for untreated groundwater and distribution
systems;
• Immunotoxicity assessment of priority CCL toxicants; and
• Evaluation of the usefulness of virulence factor activity relationships (VFARs) for
characterizing CCL pathogens.
In 2005, the Drinking Water research program received an "adequate" in its first PART review.
This rating was supported by OMB findings that the program developed sufficient annual and
long-term performance measures, though the measures lacked targets and results. As a follow-up
to the PART, the program is developing baselines and targets for its measures, establishing an
outcome-oriented efficiency measure, and improving oversight of non-grant partners, requiring
them to work toward program goals. The program has formed a workgroup comprised of OMB,
EPA, and BOSC members to discuss long-term measurement of EPA's Research and
Development programs and set appropriate baselines and targets.
By conducting research in support of SDWA, this research program will assist the Agency in
pursuing its strategic objective of providing, by 2011, drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based drinking water standards to 91 percent 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 2006
Actual
94
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of Contaminate
Candidate List
Decisions.
FY 2006
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
In 2008, the program plans to accomplish its goals of completing and delivering 100% of its
planned outputs in support of Six Year Review Decisions and Contaminant Candidate List
Decisions. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of supporting
the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in
drinking water.
S&T-80
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,461.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$45.5) This increase includes increased fixed costs and a technical adjustment to
realign workforce support costs across the research program to better reflect FY 2008
priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (-$1,900.5) This reduction reflects a shift to higher priorities within the Clean Air and
Human Health Risk Assessment research programs. While some lower priority research
will be delayed, the program will remain on target to meets its annual and long-term
performance measures. In addition, the Agency will continue to support a robust
drinking water research program that directly supports key elements of the Agency's
strategic clean and safe water goals.
• (-$295.8) This reduction reflects savings and efficiencies gained from the Agency's small
administrative IT systems and administrative and contract management services as well
as technical adjustments to realign travel resources across the research program to better
reflect FY 2008 programmatic priorities.
• (-1.4 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction reflects
efficiencies gained in EPA's Research and Development IT and administrative activities
and will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying
out its programs.
• (-$4.9) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
Statutory Authority:
SOW A; CWA; MPRSA.
S&T-81
-------
Research: Water Quality
Program Area: Research: Clean Water
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Enhance Research to Support Clean and Safe Water
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$48,233.9
$48,233.9
249.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$56,988.2
$56,988.2
245.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$56,454.0
$56,454.0
239.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($534.2)
($534.2)
-6.0
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
water bodies; and forecast the effectiveness of protection/restoration alternatives.
Research is guided by several research strategy documents (e.g., landscape ecology1 and aquatic
stressors2) 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 Plan3 (MYP) that outlines steps and provides a timeline for meeting these needs
along with related annual performance goals and measures for evaluating progress (R&D
Criteria: Relevance, Performance).
EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a Federal advisory committee comprised of
qualified, independent scientists and engineers, reviewed the Water Quality research program in
January 2006. The BOSC review found "the Water Quality research program appropriately
addresses EPA's Goal 2 by creating the tools necessary for the Office of Water to establish water
quality criteria and respond when those criteria are not being met. The program is responsive to
EPA's Office of Water, which the program has correctly identified as its primary client, in
developing their research priorities."4
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: EPA.
(2000). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nerlesdl/land-sci/pdf/1571ebOO.pdf
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Aquatic Stressors: A Framework and Implementation Plan for Effects
Research. EPA 600/R-02-074 (2002).
3 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Water Quality Research Program Multi-Year Plan. Washington, D.C.: EPA.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/mvp.htm.
4 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/wq0605rpt.pdf
S&T-82
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Research efforts within the water quality research program are aligned with the Agency's
strategic objectives of: promulgation of protective standards; identification of contaminant
contributions to impaired waters; and the utilization of tools needed to restore and protect the
nation's waters with due consideration to point and non-point sources of contamination. The
Water Quality research program has close links to the research conducted under EPA's Healthy
Communities and Ecosystems goal that focuses on the optimization of ecosystem services.
In FY 2008, the Water Quality program will continue to use the watershed management
approach to identify and reduce waterbody impairments nationwide. Research on diagnostic
methods will enable EPA to continue its focus on the causes and sources of aquatic system
impairment. Specifically, this research will provide the scientific foundation and information
management scheme for an integrated process for assessing, listing, and reporting water quality
conditions that meet statutory requirements, including a classification framework for surface
waters, watersheds, and regions. 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 will continue to
provide technical guidance for the development of nutrient water quality criteria for coastal
wetlands and estuaries and Great Lakes.
Research on river reference conditions for non-wadeable rivers, which will identify best
attainable reference conditions for a variety of impairments, will be used to interpret the results
of EPA's 2008-2009 National Rivers Survey and for Clean Water Act (CWA) reporting. Efforts
will continue to advance the development of new methods for deriving water quality criteria to
protect human and ecological health from harmful exposures to toxic chemicals. These methods
incorporate new and improved scientific techniques to address highly bioaccumulative
chemicals, dietary exposure pathways, chemical mixtures, fluctuating exposures, extrapolation of
toxicity data across species, and effects at the population level. The methods will address risks
to special status taxa (endangered) and aquatic-dependent wildlife not traditionally taken into
consideration under water quality criteria. Research will continue to develop bioindicator and
bioassessment methods for states to use, particularly for assessing and determining the function
of poorly-studied waterbodies, such as headwaters and wetlands. Research to improve pathogen
indicators for protection of recreational waters and beaches will continue as well.
To provide more efficient monitoring and diagnostic tools, EPA will continue to develop
methods of using landscape assessments for monitoring and assessing watershed condition.
Models to determine the likelihood of impairment will be integrated with monitoring in order to
assess condition and develop optimal monitoring strategies that support integrated assessments
and reporting, as required by statute. 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.
The integrated watershed management work will supply tools for watershed-based management
designed to connect management actions with outcomes. Work will be carried out in six areas
including: (1) optimizing selection and placement of restoration options; (2) molecular source
S&T-83
-------
tracking; (3) evaluating water quality benefits of best management practices (BMPs) in
watersheds; (4) science supporting integrated watershed management; (5) role of wetlands in
water quality trading; and (6) improved control of effluents from publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) during wet weather flow conditions. Developing improved fate and transport
models for priority stressors (nutrients, sediments, and pathogens) will continue, along with
technical support, to assist states with TMDL determinations.
In FY 2008, research will continue the development of innovative solutions to manage the
nation's aging wastewater infrastructure. Through research started in FY 2007 under the "Water
Infrastructure for the 21st Century" initiative, we will continue to develop the science and
engineering to improve and evaluate promising innovative technologies and techniques to
increase the effectiveness and reduce the cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement of
aging and failing wastewater conveyance systems. Research efforts will include state of
technology reports on innovative condition assessments and rehabilitation methods for sewer
collection systems.
Research on the management of manure to ensure that environmentally responsible practices are
available will continue in support of EPA's Wastewater Management program. Field studies of
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) will determine the magnitude of releases to
ground waters and surface waters and evaluate control options with emphasis on nutrient and
pathogen contaminants, along with emerging chemicals such as endocrine disrupters.
Research on wetlands will continue to develop a hierarchical assessment approach to address the
objectives of the President's initiative to preserve and restore wetlands by incorporating wetlands
functions and impacts on water quality. In addition, research will continue on the use of
wetlands as a source of pollution reduction credits in water quality trading, a priority for EPA's
Water program. 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.
In FY 2008, new research will be conducted to assess and improve the control of microbial
releases from POTWs during periods of significant wet weather events. During these events
wastewater flow may exceed POTW treatment capacity, resulting in diversion of wastewater
around secondary treatment units followed by recombination with flows from the secondary
treatment units or discharging it directly into waterways from the treatment plant. Studies will be
conducted on the efficacy of disinfection treatment options under such conditions to determine
how to optimize them. Current POTW practices for handling significant wet weather events,
such as blending, will be assessed to identify "best practices" during such events. In out years,
this work will lead to reports that POTW managers can use to more cost-effectively operate their
systems in wet weather conditions while still protecting water quality.
In 2006, the water quality research program received an "adequate" rating in its first PART
review. This rating was supported by findings that the program has long-term and annual output
performance measures that reflect the purpose of the program, as well as a preliminary output
efficiency measure. However, the program is continuing to develop more ambitious long-term
outcome measures, develop an outcome-oriented efficiency measure, and improve its budget
S&T-84
-------
performance integration through better use of financial and performance tracking data. To this
end, EPA has formed and convened a BOSC/OMB/EPA workgroup to discuss long-term
measurement of research and development programs. As part of this workgroup, the program has
developed water quality-specific questions to be used in future BOSC reviews, and has begun to
identify specific data sources that will be provided to the BOSC.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal
#1) delivered
FY 2006
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal
#2) delivered
FY 2006
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal
#3) delivered
FY 2006
Actual
92
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
In 2008, the program plans to accomplish its goals of completing and delivering 100% of its
planned outputs. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of
supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to
contaminants in fish, shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic
ecosystems.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$953.4) This reflects an increase in payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$541.0) This technical adjustment realigns workforce support costs (such as capital
equipment and repairs and improvement) across the research program to better reflect
FY 2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (+/-$505.6 / +/-2.0 FTE) This reflects an internal redirection of resources within the
Water Quality research program to fund efforts to assess and improve the control of
microbial releases from POTWs during periods of significant wet weather events when
wastewater flow may exceed POTW treatment capacity. Current POTW practices for
handling significant wet weather events, such as blending, will be assessed to identify
S&T-85
-------
"best practices" during such events. Resources will be redirected from research on water
quality trading.
• (+$15.8) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (-$1,246.0) This reflects reductions to lower priority research in the extramural
component of the Water Quality Program, including discontinuation of EPA's
participation in the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (EcoHab)
research program.
• (-6.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. 1.4 FTE of this reduction
reflects efficiencies gained in EPA's Research and Development IT and administrative
activities. 4.6 FTE of this reduction will delay new toxics stressor research and reflects a
greater emphasis being placed on the development of watershed based information and
tools. These reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and
effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
• (-$396.2) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or
contract management services.
• (-$400.2) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (-$2.0) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; ODBA; SPA; CVA; WRDA; WWWQA; MPPRCA; NISA; CZARA; CWPPRA; ESA;
NAWCA; FIFRA; TSCA.
S&T-86
-------
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems
S&T-87
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$33,663.5
$3,604.4
$37,267.9
181.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$34,488.5
$3,847.2
$38,335.7
183.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$38,856.0
$3,972.0
$42,828.0
182.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$4,367.5
$124.8
$4,492.3
-1.8
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 used extensively by EPA programs, Regional Offices, and other parties to
determine the potential risk to public health from exposure to environmental contaminants, to
develop regulatory standards, and to manage environmental cleanups.
This research program is guided by the Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan1
(MYP), which provides detail on the assessment and methods development products planned
under this program. The MYP also outlines research needs and priorities. Performance outputs
and outcomes are documented in the MYP through the annual performance goals and measures
structure. The MYP also coordinates with a number of EPA research strategies and plans2 (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 programmatic
decision-making needs.
In FY 2003, a Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory committee comprised
of qualified, independent scientists and engineers—subcommittee review found that the National
Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) has made several key advancements including
completion of a strategic plan, targeting cutting-edge risk assessments, improving the
proportionate representation of ecological assessments to human health assessments, enhancing
communication, and improving capabilities to provide environmental assessment resources in
response to September 11th. A subsequent BOSC subcommittee program review is scheduled for
September 2007.
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
1 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/mvp/HHRA.pdf.
2 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/researchstrategies.htmtfrs01.
S&T-88
-------
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 they are also disseminated to the public, principally on the IRIS internet
database.3 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. At the end of 2006, there were over 540 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 Science Assessments: 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
determining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These Science
Assessment summaries (formerly Air Quality Criteria Documents) are major risk
assessments that undergo rigorous external peer review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) (R&D Criteria: Quality, Relevance).
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Agency will continue to support the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
and other health hazard assessments by:
• Completing 16 health hazard assessments of high priority chemicals for interagency
review or external peer review and posting 8 finalized assessments on the internet (R&D
Criteria: Quality, Relevance, Performance);
• Expanding opportunities for interagency review and public comment (R&D Criteria:
Quality); and
• Consulting with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on critical risk assessment
method developments and assessment approaches (R&D Criteria: Quality, Relevance).
In the area of risk assessment guidance, methods and models, the Agency will support
improvements by:
• Continuing to provide analysis of uncertainty in physiologically-based pharmacokinetic
(PBPK) models and application to risk assessment (R&D Criteria: Relevance,
Performance);
• Providing improved quantitative risk assessment procedures (R&D Criteria: Relevance,
Performance);
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris.
S&T-89
-------
• Preparing a summary of issues and criteria for improved use of mode-of-action
information in risk assessments (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Quality);
• Providing a revision of the reference concentration methodology for use in IRIS
assessments (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Performance); and
• Providing an external review draft update of the Exposure Factors Handbook, collating
exposure information for use in Agency risk assessments (also supported by HHRA SF;
R&D Criteria: Relevance, Performance).
In FY 2008, the Agency will support the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
process by:
• Developing and implementing a process to identify, compile, characterize, and prioritize
new scientific studies for "Science Assessments" of criteria air pollutants, as a mandated
prerequisite to EPA's review of the NAAQS and to effectively meet court ordered
deadlines to provide these assessments (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Performance); and
• Delivering revised Science Assessments for Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides to
contribute to EPA's Air and Radiation program's review of the NAAQS and creation of
state-of-the-science methods for continuous evaluation of assessments of new scientific
information on criteria air pollutants (R&D Criteria: Relevance, Performance).
In calendar year 2006, the Human Health Risk Assessment Program (HHRA) received a
"moderately effective" rating in its first PART review. This rating was supported by findings
that the program has long-term and annual performance measures with ambitious targets, as well
as a set of results indicating that the program is on track to meet its goals. As a follow-up to the
PART, the program must: (1) expand its efficiency measure to include all major work products;
(2) implement a new IRIS review process; (3) engage in regular, independent evaluations that
assess the program's effectiveness; and (4) investigate alternative approaches for measuring
progress related to providing timely, high quality scientific assessments. It also will be
reviewed by a BOSC subcommittee every three to four years, with mid-cycle reviews occurring
midway between the comprehensive reviews.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of Air Quality
Criteria/Science
Assessment
documents.
FY 2006
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
-
FY 2007
Target
90
FY 2008
Target
90
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of HHRA
FY 2006
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
-
FY 2007
Target
90
FY 2008
Target
90
Units
Percent
S&T-90
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
health assessments.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of HHRA
Technical Support
Documents.
FY 2006
Actual
81
FY 2006
Target
-
FY 2007
Target
90
FY 2008
Target
90
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Average cost to
produce Air Quality
Criteria/Science
Assessment
documents.
FY 2006
Actual
7,282K
FY 2006
Target
_
FY 2007
Target
5,386K
FY 2008
Target
3,796K
Units
$ Average
Cost
In 2008, the program plans to accomplish its goals of completing and delivering 100% of its
planned outputs in support of: (1) Air Quality Criteria/ Science Assessment documents, (2)
human health risk assessments, and (3) HHRA technical support documents. Additionally, the
program plans to meet its efficiency goal of reducing the average cost to produce Air Quality
Criteria/ Science Assessment documents. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute
to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the
health of people, communities, and ecosystems.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3,168.4) This reflects an increase to support: 1) the development of quantitative risk
assessment methods to allow improved analysis of uncertainty in human health risk
assessment so that risk managers and the public better understand the range of potential
risk values and 2) the development and implementation of a process to identify, compile,
characterize, and prioritize new scientific studies for "Science Assessments" of criteria
air pollutants (formerly Air Quality Criteria Documents), as a mandated prerequisite to
EPA's review of the NAAQS, and to meet court ordered deadlines to provide these
assessments. The scientific findings from the Clean Air Program inform "Science
Assessments" funded under the Human Health Risk Assessment Program.
• (+$974.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$402.4) This technical adjustment realigns workforce support costs (such as capital
equipment and repairs and improvement) across the research program to better reflect
FY 2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (+$10.6) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
S&T-91
-------
• (-$143.6) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (-$42.4) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$1.1) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (-$0.8) This is a technical adjustment to realign travel resources across the research
program to better reflect FY 2008 programmatic priorities. There will be no
programmatic impact.
• ("1.7 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction reflects
efficiencies gained in EPA's Research and Development IT and administrative activities
and will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying
out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; SOW A; CWA; TSCA; FIFRA; CERCLA; SARA; FQPA.
S&T-92
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$13,264.5
$13,264.5
29.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$14,983.1
$14,983.1
34.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,103.0
$15,103.0
34.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$119.9
$119.9
0.0
Program Project Description:
Computational Toxicology is the application of mathematical and computer models to assess the
risk chemicals pose to human health and the environment. Computational biology offers the
possibility that, with advances in computational biology's sub-disciplines (e.g., genomics,
proteomics, and metabonomics), scientists may have the ability to develop a more detailed
understanding of the risks posed by a much larger number of chemicals.
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.
The Agency has developed a peer-reviewed Framework for a Computational Toxicology
Research Program,1 which identifies the research needs and unique capabilities of EPA and
provides the basis for a more focused and integrated research program in the future. This
research effort also supports Understanding Complex Biological Systems, one of the
Administration's FY 2008 R&D priorities.
A subcommittee of EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory
committee comprised of qualified, independent scientists and engineers— 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 web site at
http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/subcomm-ctox.htm.
The report praised the early efforts of the NCCT and encouraged its further development. A
formal response was prepared and submitted to EPA and the BOSC. In FY 2006, the NCCT
drafted an implementation plan for its research program, which was submitted to the BOSC for
1 U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. A Framework for a Computational Toxicology Research Program.
Washington, DC: EPA. Accessed August 4, 2005. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/comptox/publications/comptoxframework06 02 04.pdf.
S&T-93
-------
review and comment in June 2006. This implementation plan details the outputs and outcomes
expected of the program over FYs 2006-2008 (R&D Criteria: Quality).
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The CTRP will focus on four areas in FY 2008: 1) information technology; 2) chemical
prioritization and categorization tools; 3) systems biology models; and 4) cumulative risk
assessment. (R&D Criteria: Relevance)
Information Technology: New technologies are needed to mine existing data for patterns to
appropriately place new chemicals of unknown hazard 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), and these will be linked to the broader chemical information
database in PubChem. Working in conjunction with EPA's Pesticide Program, a database is
being created that will contain the outcomes of the developmental, reproductive and chronic
bioassay data for registered pesticides (R&D Criteria: Performance).
Chemical Prioritization and Categorization Tools: Having the capability to predict which
chemicals are in greatest need of toxicology testing and which endpoints would be the most
important to examine is a pressing problem for multiple regulatory offices in EPA. Knowledge
of the key steps in a chemical's potential mechanisms of action provides a template for
developing models for these predictions. The ToxCast program, which was initiated in FY 2006,
will obtain high-throughput screening data on 200-400 chemicals of known toxicological
profiles. Fingerprints of biological activity associated with differing toxicological profiles will be
developed from this database, which is being developed in conjunction with the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) Molecular Libraries Initiative (R&D Criteria: Relevance). In FY
2008, plans are to expand beyond the proof of concept phase of ToxCast and begin to examine
the activities of target groups of chemicals such as anti-microbials, pesticidal inerts and high-
production volume chemicals. Examples of outputs in this area include:
• Construction of in silico models for identifying chemicals that can interact with nuclear
hormones (e.g., estrogen, androgen, peroxisome proliferation) receptors (R&D Criteria:
Performance);
• Sample procurement, preparation and distribution to contractors providing high-
throughput bioassay data using genomic, proteomic or metabonomic tools;
• Construction of a relational database of high-throughput bioassay results, physical
chemical properties and interpretive toxicological information for 200-400 active
pesticides; and
• Establishment of common bioassay-derived fingerprints for key toxicological outcomes
to support the needs of the EPA 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
S&T-94
-------
the source-to-outcome gap and in conducting quantitative risk assessments (R&D Criteria:
Relevance). In FY 2008 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);
• Develop guidance on best practices for the construction, analysis and reporting of
toxicological models that link pharmacokinetic information with the dynamic responses
of target organs; and
• Begin developing a computational model of the liver by integrating biological
information across multiple levels of organization in order to achieve an improved
understanding of how susceptibility to toxicant exposure depends on environmental,
behavioral and genetic factors, and on age and health status. The first phase will describe
normal biological processes.
Cumulative Risk Assessment: Computational tools offer the potential to reduce uncertainties in
cumulative risk by focusing on aspects of data compilation, integration, and analysis (R&D
Criteria: Relevance).
The CTRP will explore mathematical approaches for analyzing 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
psycho-social 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 (R&D Criteria: Performance).
The CTRP will also work with the Centers for Environmental Bioinformatics, established
through the Agency's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, to enhance predictive
linkages between the components of the source-outcome paradigm and to better understand the
relationships between genetic and environmental influences on adverse outcomes. In FY 2008,
the Agency will perform a demonstration of the application of visual analytics to children's
cohort data.
EPA is continually working to develop appropriate annual and long-term output and outcome
measures for this program that meet the standards of the OMB PART. Additionally, EPA is
working to develop useful efficiency measures to guide program management decisions and
improvement strategies.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Science and Research objective. Currently, there are
no PART performance measures for this specific program.
S&T-95
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$51.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+127.8) This reflects technical adjustments that will have no programmatic impacts.
Adjustments include realignment of IT, telecommunications, travel, and workforce
support resources.
• (+$1.3) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (-$30.5) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$30.0) This represents a reduction to research support focused on predictive tools.
There will be no programmatic or performance impacts as a result of the reduction.
• (-$0.2) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; SDWA.
S&T-96
-------
Research: Endocrine Disruptor
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 2006
Actuals
$11,234.3
$11,234.3
54.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$9,081.2
$9,081.2
54.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,131.0
$10,131.0
54.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,049.8
$1,049.8
-0.4
Program Project Description:
Research in direct support of EPA's screening and testing programs (mandated under the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments1
(SDWAA) of 1996) evaluates current testing protocols and develops new protocols to evaluate
potential endocrine effects of environmental agents. Other research develops and applies
methods, models, and measures to evaluate real-world exposures to endocrine disrupters and
characterize related effects resulting from these exposures for humans and wildlife; and develops
risk management tools to prevent or mitigate exposures. Research assists 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.2 The Agency also
maintains a multi-year plan (MYP)3 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).
In December 2004, the Endocrine Disrupters research program was reviewed by a subcommittee
of EPA's research oversight body, the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), which
commended the progress and direction of the research and provided recommendations for further
partnerships.4 Consistent with BOSC recommendations, EPA will take a leadership role in the
application of "omics" technologies, focusing research on understanding mechanisms of action
and extrapolation across species by applying "omics" approaches.
1 SDWA Section 1457.
2 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Research Plan for Endocrine Disrupters. Washington, B.C.: EPA (1998).
Available at: http:// www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/ORD-EDR-Febl998.pdf.
3 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Multi-Year Plan for Endocrine Disrupters. Washington, B.C.: EPA (2003).
Available at: www.epa.gov/osp/mvp/edc.pdf.
4 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Bevelopment, EBC Research Program Review. Washington, B.C. (2004).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/edc0504rpt.pdf
S&T-97
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to develop, evaluate, and apply innovative DNA microarray and
other state-of-the-art analytical methods for endocrine disrupting chemicals (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 will lead to
a reduction of animal testing, and 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)5. Other important areas of
research to be continued in FY 2008 include:
• Developing/improving in vivo and in vitro assays to provide the Agency the methods it
needs to implement the Congressionally mandated Endocrine Disrupter Screening
Program - a high priority for the Agency;
• Developing the next generation of assays by applying newer computational and
molecular approaches to develop models that predict a chemical's ability to cause
endocrine disruption;
• Determining classes of chemicals that act as endocrine disrupters and their potencies;
characterizing modes of action and the shape of the dose-response curve; developing
approaches for assessing cumulative risk and extrapolating results across species which
would lead to reduced animal testing;
• Developing molecular indicators of exposure and analytical methods for detecting certain
EDCs; identifying the key factors that influence human exposures to EDCs; identifying
sources of EDCs entering the environment, focusing on: wastewater treatment plants,
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and drinking water treatment plants;
developing tools for risk reduction and mitigation strategies; and
• Applying methods, models, and tools developed by EPA and other research organizations
to characterize the impact of environmental mixtures of EDCs on environmental media
and aquatic organisms. Sources of EDCs to be examined include wastewater treatment
plants, CAFOs, and drinking water plants. Field studies will be conducted to document
the spatial and temporal variability of EDC exposures in the environment and
characterize their magnitude.
In 2004, the Endocrine Disrupters research program and EPA's Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substance's Endocrine Disrupters Screening Program were assessed and jointly received an
"adequate" rating. The assessment found the program was free of major design flaws, had a
clear purpose, and was reasonably well-managed.
The program's long-term performance measures are shared with EPA's Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances program: (1) to determine the extent of the impact of endocrine disrupters
on humans, wildlife, and the environment to better inform the Federal and scientific
5 FY 2007 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities memo by J.Marburger and J. Bolten; July 8,
2005.
S&T-98
-------
communities; and (2) to reduce the uncertainty regarding the effects, exposure, assessment, and
management of endocrine disrupters so that EPA has a sound scientific foundation for
environmental decision-making. The research program also has developed performance
indicators that monitor research activities and outputs. Targets for these include screening and
testing protocols that the Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances program will validate for
use in evaluating the potential for chemicals to cause endocrine-mediated effects. To improve
performance, the programs are currently working to develop baseline data for efficiency
measures that compare dollars and labor hours for validating chemical assays.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Improved protocols for
screening and testing
FY 2006
Actual
1
FY 2006
Target
1
FY 2007
Target
6
FY 2008
Target
1
Units
Reports
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Effects and exposure
milestones met
FY 2006
Actual
9
FY 2006
Target
9
FY 2007
Target
4
FY 2008
Target
3
Units
Reports
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Risk management
milestones met
FY 2006
Actual
3
FY 2006
Target
3
FY 2007
Target
3
FY 2008
Target
2
Units
Reports
In 2008, the program plans to accomplish its goals of completing: (1) one report relating to
improved protocols for screening and testing; (2) three reports related to effects and exposure;
and (3) two reports related to risk management. In achieving these targets, the program will
contribute to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related
to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems, with regard to chemical toxicology.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$796.1) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$292.3) This realignment of resources will support IT, data quality assurance and
science review, operation of mission critical facilities, and technical support for scientists
evaluating current testing protocols.
• (+$37.4) This technical adjustment realigns workforce support costs (such as capital
equipment and repairs and improvement) across the research program to better reflect FY
2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (+$3.2) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
S&T-99
-------
• (-$77.2) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$2.0) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (-0.4 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction reflects
efficiencies gained in EPA's Research and Development IT and administrative activities
and will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying
out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; ERDDA; FIFRA; TSCA; FQPA; SOW A; CWA; RCRA; CERCLA; PPA.
S&T-100
-------
Research: Fellowships
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 2006
Actuals
$15,609.9
$15,609.9
4.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$8,383.0
$8,383.0
2.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$8,438.0
$8,438.0
2.7
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$55.0
$55.0
-0.1
Program Project Description:
To help ensure an educated and trained scientific workforce for the future, EPA offers five
programs that encourage promising students to obtain advanced degrees and pursue careers in
environmentally related fields.
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship Program:1 EPA provides stipends, tuition
assistance, and research support to graduate students in environmentally related fields for up to
three years. In addition to conducting quality environmental research, fellows agree to maintain
contact with the Agency for at least five years after graduation.
Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) Fellowship Program:2 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 funds. In addition to conducting quality environmental research, fellows agree to
maintain contact with the Agency for at least five years after graduation.
Environmental Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program:3 In conjunction with the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, EPA hosts scientific and technical
professionals who have completed a Ph.D. or equivalent degree for up to two years at EPA's
Headquarters. Recipients work independently with support from Agency mentors on self-
designed projects that enable them to work at the interface of science and environmental public
policy.
Environmental Public Health Fellowship Program:4 In conjunction with the Association of
Schools of Public Health, EPA hosts individuals who have attained master's degrees from
accredited U.S. schools of public health for up to two years. Recipients work on issues with
environmental public health implications.
1 For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/fellow.
2 For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/fellow.
3 For more information, see http://fellowships.aaas.org/01 About/01 Partners.shtml#EPA.
4 For more information, see http://www.asph.org/document.cfm?page=75 l&JobProg ID=1.
S&T-101
-------
EPA Marshall Scholarship Program:5 In conjunction with the British Marshall Scholarships,
EPA offers scholarships for U.S. students for environmentally related graduate study. The
program gives priority to students whose work is global or international in nature. Funded by the
British government, scholars spend two years at a British university. EPA may support eligible
scholars for up to three additional years as they work toward a doctoral degree in either the
United Kingdom or U.S.
The fellowship programs coordinate their activities with other Federal and nonprofit
organizations through the National Academies' Fellowships Roundtable, which meets
biannually.6 EPA is the only Federal agency that focuses on higher education assistance and
career development in the environmental sciences. The program is also participating in the
review of Federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education programs led by
the Academic Competitiveness Council, which was established by Congress in the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005.
A subcommittee of EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory
committee comprised of qualified, independent scientists and engineers—conducted a review of
the STAR and GRO fellowship programs in March, 2006. The subcommittee reported that "the
fellows funded by the STAR and GRO programs have made excellent contributions in
environmental science and engineering, and a number of them continue to be employed in the
environmental field ... the EPA programs clearly are of value to the Agency and the nation in
helping to educate the next generation of environmental scientists and engineers."7 EPA is
working to develop appropriate annual and long-term output and outcome measures for this
program that meet the standards of OMB's PART. Additionally, EPA is working to develop
useful efficiency measures to guide program management decisions and improvement strategies.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will review and award new STAR and GRO fellowships and support fellows who received
awards in earlier fiscal years. Fellowship recipients will complete progress and exit reports, and
the Agency will maintain contact information and follow-up data on former fellows. The STAR
and GRO fellowship programs will host a biennial conference in Washington, D.C., for fellows
to meet and exchange research results. The program will also select and arrange hosting for
AAAS and ASPH recipients and support eligible Marshall Scholarship recipients.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Enhance Science and Research objective. Currently,
there are no PART performance measures for this specific program.
5 For more information, see http://www.marshallscholarship.org/applicationepa.html.
6 For more information, see http://www7.nationalacademies. org/fellowships/roundtable .html.
7 EPA, Board of Scientific Counselors, Review of the Office of Research and Development's Science To Achieve
Results (STAR) and Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) Fellowship Programs at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.: EPA (2006), 1-2. See http://epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/star0609rpt.pdf.
S&T-102
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$36.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$18.5) This reflects technical adjustments that will have no programmatic impacts.
Adjustments include realignment of IT, telecommunications, travel, and workforce
support resources.
• (-0.1 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction reflects
efficiencies gained in EPA's research and development IT and administrative activities
and will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying
out its programs.
• (-$0.2) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; CWA; FIFRA; NCA; RCRA; SOW A; TSCA.
S&T-103
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$169,126.0
$169,126.0
512.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$161,312. 7
$161,312.7
509.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$145,046.0
$145,046.0
497.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($16,266. 7)
($16,266.7)
-12.3
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, advanced monitoring research, nanotechnology research, exploratory research,
and the Agency's Report on the Environment.
Research is guided by the "Human Health Research Strategy"1 and the "Ecological Research
Strategy,"2 which were developed in collaboration with major clients (e.g., program offices and
Regional Offices). These strategies outline the program's research needs and priorities. Under
this program, several multi-year plans (MYPs)3 (e.g., human health, ecological research, and
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 reviews by EPA's research oversight body, the Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC) in March of 2005. The BOSC 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."4 The BOSC review of the ecosystem protection program found "the ecosystem
research program to be a high-quality scientific program that is providing essential technical
information to the regulatory offices within EPA as well as to state, local, and Tribal
1 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Human Health Research Strategy. Washington, DC: EPA.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/humarihealth/HHRS_fmal_web.pdf.
2 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/eco.pdf.
3 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.
4 Report of the Subcommittee on Health, revised July 27, 2005, Board of Scientific Counselors, pg 9. For more
information, see http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/hh0507rpt.pdf.
S&T-104
-------
governments to assist these entities in addressing novel problems of environmental
management."5 The BOSC conducted a mid-cycle review of the program in January 2007.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Human Health Research
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to support research to develop 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 from animals to 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 assessments of cancer and non-cancer effects of conazole fungicides. Additional
research efforts will develop emerging molecular methods and approaches and identify critical
toxicity pathways, e.g., oxidative stress, for characterizing the effects of chemicals (such as
particulate matter, metals, pesticides, and chemical contaminants in drinking water) on human
health (R&D Criteria: Performance).
Research will develop tools for identifying communities (e.g., localities, populations, groups) at
greatest risk, identifying and quantifying the factors influencing these exposures, and developing
and implementing appropriate risk reduction strategies. Research on intervention and prevention
strategies will ultimately reduce human risk associated with exposures to single and multiple
environmental stressors. Cumulative risk research will develop approaches for restructuring
exposures from biomarker data generated in large-scale exposure and epidemiological studies
and linking these exposures to their primary sources, and for using exposure, biomarker, and
pharmacokinetic data in cumulative risk assessments (R&D Criteria: Performance).
Other human health research will continue to focus on exposures to environmental contaminants
during critical lifestages, such as early development, childhood, or aging. Efforts related to
children's health include identification of the key factors influencing children's exposures to
environmental toxicants (including chemical exposure in schools) and the production of high
quality children's exposure data to reduce current uncertainties in risk assessment. Exposure
research will also determine if older individuals are differentially exposed to environmental
stressors. Human health research focused on physiological and biochemical changes during
critical lifestages will be used as a basis for understanding susceptibility and the role of
environmental stressors in the exacerbation or pathogenesis of disease (R&D Criteria:
Performance).
EPA also will continue to support and collaborate with the EPA-sponsored Centers for
Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research, which study whether and
how environmental factors play a role in children's health. These unique Children's Centers
perform targeted research in children's environmental health and translate their scientific
findings into intervention and prevention strategies by working with communities. The
Children's Centers have established long-term birth and school age cohorts that follow
participants over many years to consider the full range of health effects resulting from exposure
to environmental chemicals. Additionally, the Children's Centers are tracking a wide range of
1 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/reports.htm.
S&T-105
-------
environmental exposures at multiple stages of development to evaluate relationships between
these exposures and observed health effects.
Research on public health outcomes in FY 2008 will include a study on assessing the cumulative
impact of a suite of air pollution reduction programs on environmental public health indicators
for children and older populations in New Haven, Connecticut. This research will provide
guidance on models useful in assessing public health impacts in response to provisions of the
Clean Air Act (R&D Criteria: Performance).
In 2005, the Human Health Research program received an "adequate" rating on its first PART
assessment. This rating was supported by findings that the program's research results were
being used to reduce uncertainty in risk assessment. However, reviewers also noted that the
program needed more data and clearer long-term targets to demonstrate continued progress. To
this end, the program continues to address its PART follow-up actions and improve program
performance. For instance, in order to improve the linkage between budget resources and long-
term performance targets in FY 2008, the Agency created financial tracking codes in its
accounting system to allow for better distinction between the ecosystems and human health
programs. Additionally, OMB, EPA, and members of the BOSC formed a workgroup to discuss
long-term measurement of research and development programs. The workgroup is tasked with
developing a system by which an independent panel can measure programs' progress toward
long-term goals. The Human Health Research program is currently developing program-specific
questions to be used to assess the program on a long-term basis. Finally, the program developed
and submitted for peer review a multi-year implementation plan incorporating action items from
its BOSC review.
Ecological Research
The Ecological Research Program is a multi-media program consistent with the integrated,
multi-endpoint perspectives of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal. As such, it
provides essential information which complements research conducted under other Agency
Goals, such as those focused on air, land and water. The Ecological Research Program is
comprised of three elements: (1) assessment of the condition of aquatic ecological resources; (2)
the development of methods and tools for causal diagnostics and environmental forecasting, and
(3) ecological services and restoration research.
Historically, EPA has monitored and assessed the condition of aquatic ecological resources
through the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). The goal of EMAP is
to develop the scientific understanding for translating environmental monitoring data from
multiple spatial and temporal scales into assessments of ecological condition and forecasts of the
future risks to the sustainability of our natural resources. Initially, EMAP was focused on
developing a systematic framework for data collection methods in order to accurately assess the
state of the nation's waters. In FY 2008, EMAP will transition to become a data analysis
program that focuses on analyzing cumulative data generated by EMAP's coastal and freshwater
monitoring programs. These analyses will generate new hypotheses to be tested, create new
statistical models for investigating relationships among EMAP variables (e.g., landcover and
biological integrity), and suggest new opportunities to improve Agency-wide monitoring using a
S&T-106
-------
common, EMAP-like, framework. The Ecological Research Program also will continue to
support EPA's Water program as it implements a probabilistic survey approach in various
waterbody types (i.e., streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries and rivers) in support of EPA's Clean
and Safe Water goal.
The second element of ecosystems research is based on improving scientific understanding of
causal linkages between stressors and changes in ecosystem processes. In FY 2008, research in
this area will continue to focus on developing tools and methods to diagnose causes of ecological
impairment, including forecasting models. In FY 2008, the research program will apply the
Community Multi-scale Air Quality Model (CMAQ) to support studies of the ecological effects
related to changes in ecosystem exposures to air pollutants, as a result of the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR).
The Agency is developing DNA identification methods to more rapidly and cost-effectively
identify benthic organisms contained in ballast water, the primary transport route for aquatic
invasive species, which are a significant stressor on aquatic ecosystems. EPA will continue this
work in FY 2008, applying these techniques to the monitoring of invasives in the Great Lakes
and on the Pacific coast. In addition, EPA will investigate the efficacy of using this same
technology to identify benthic organisms in streams and rapidly assess stream conditions based
on previously-determined indices of biotic integrity.
In its 2005 review of the Ecological Research Program, the BOSC identified ecosystem services
as a key area for further development, stating "...provision of ecosystem services and the
communication of these to decision-makers...is a highly relevant activity that is central to EPA 's
mandate of improving environmental quality and protecting and restoring the health of the
nation's ecosystems. " EPA's FY 2008 plan includes some initial steps towards addressing this
third element of the ecological research program.
In FY 2008, the Ecological Research Program will emphasize development of methods to
optimize the services provided by the ecosystem as a whole. This approach has several
interrelated objectives: quantification of ecosystem services in space and time; determining how
management strategies affect the type, quality, and amount of services available to society;
developing tools to analyze trade-offs among services received; and predicting ecological
thresholds. The program will continue development of a decision-support tool that enables
managers to balance ecosystem requirements with human needs, using optimization theory
coupled to existing GIS models. In FY 2008, work also will continue to develop methods to
restore large floodplain rivers. This research is quantifying how natural river features can be
used to cool industrial thermal discharges, provide non-structural flood control, enhance riparian
and riverine habitat, and provide recreational opportunities, all while working within biophysical
and economic constraints.
Multiple natural and human stressors have already degraded some ecosystem functions and their
related services to the point that restoration is difficult and costly. In FY 2008, ecosystem
restoration research will continue to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of restoring streams and their
associated ecosystem services. In order to proactively avoid loss of ecosystem functions and
services, research will continue on methods for predicting ecological thresholds in rivers, lakes,
S&T-107
-------
wetlands, and estuaries that are subjected to or impacted by multiple human stressors. This
research will also create decision-support tools for managing resources in ways that improve
their resilience to disturbance, thus reducing the need for future costly restoration efforts.
The Ecosystem Protection Research program received an "ineffective" rating in its most recent
PART review in 2005, and received a "results not demonstrated" rating in its initial PART
review in 2003. EPA continues to make progress toward meeting its PART follow-up actions
and improving program weaknesses identified in these reviews. First, OMB, EPA, and members
of the BOSC have formed a workgroup to develop a system by which an independent panel can
measure a program's utility and performance in relation to research outcomes. This workgroup
will refine the questions used in the Agency's independent scientific review of the program in
order to better relate research elements to environmental outcomes. Second, the Agency has
begun to develop a program-specific customer survey to improve the program's utility to the
Agency. EPA met with OMB in May 2006 to present its survey methodology and is currently
working to revise and refine the survey specifically for application to ecological research.
Finally, in order to improve the linkage between budget resources and long-term performance
targets, the Agency created sub-program-projects in the FY 2008 budget to allow for better
distinction between the ecosystems and human health research programs. EPA will continue to
make progress in these areas, as it prepares for its re-PART, scheduled for the spring of calendar
year 2007.
Additionally, EPA recognizes that, while the Ecosystem Protection Program is a vital and
integral part of its mission, critiques received during the review process were largely focused on
deficiencies in strategic planning and performance measures. In response, the Ecological
Research Program is completing a draft of its fourth revision of its Multi-Year Plan (MYP) to
ensure the strategic vision of the program is current and outcome-oriented. This request will
support the implementation of the revised MYP.
Nanotechnology Research and Exploratory Grants
EPA is increasingly focused on both nanotechnology's potential applications for protecting the
environment and its implications for environmental health and safety. The Agency's efforts are
coordinated with other Federal agencies through the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI),6
which the Administration has identified as a FY 2008 research and development budget priority.7
EPA's nanotechnology research also is guided by a nanotechnology white paper8 prepared by the
Agency and a draft research needs document being prepared by the Nanotechnology
Environmental and Health Implications Working Group9 of the National Science and
Technology Committee's (NSTC) Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and
Technology.
6 For more information, see http://www.nano.gov/.
7 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology
Policy, FY 2008 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities. Washington, D.C.: OMB (2006), 5.
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fv2006/m06-17.pdf.
8 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/osa/nanotech.htm.
9 For more information, see http://www.nano.gov/html/society/NEHI.htm.
S&T-108
-------
In FY 2008, the Agency's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program will continue to fund
exploratory grants on the implications of manufactured nanomaterials on the environment and
human health, in collaboration with other Federal agencies.10 The Agency also will continue in-
house nanotechnology research initiated in FY 2007. The integrated programs will focus on
assessing the potential ecological and human health exposures and effects from nanomaterials
likely to be released into the environment; studying the lifecycles of nanomaterials to better
understand how environmental releases may occur; developing methods to detect releases of
nanomaterials; and using nanotechnology to detect, control, and remediate traditional pollutants.
Other facets of nanotechnology research will also be supported by the Research: Land Protection
and Restoration program and, to a lesser extent, other programs.
Indicators Research to support the Report on the Environment (ROE)
In 2007, the Agency plans to release EPA's ROE following the external review by the Science
Advisory Board. The ROE is considered in strategic planning activities as EPA works to
develop and implement more transparent and outcome-oriented measures and indicators. In FY
2008, EPA will continue mission-based research that will help support this triennial report.
Advanced Monitoring Initiative
In FY 2008, the Advanced Monitoring Initiative (AMI) will continue to bring together
information technology advancements with advances in remote sensing and in-situ monitoring to
improve the interface between research products and environmental and health decision-making.
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. In addition to improving
collaborative capabilities focused on decision-making, EPA will begin building a knowledge
base of the accumulated AMI learning experience. This effort is linked with the interagency
U.S. Global Earth Observations (USGEO) initiative and with the international community
through the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) 10-Year Implementation
Plan. Each year since 2003, the annual OMB/Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
Memorandum on Research and Development Budget Priorities has encouraged agency efforts
align with USGEO and GEOSS.
Mercury Research
EPA has developed a multi-year plan for studying mercury, including its sources, control and
treatment, environmental fate and behavior, impacts on ecological resources, and potential
10 For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/.
11 OMB/OSTP FY 2008 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities Memorandum for the Heads
of Executive Departments and Agencies, June 2006.
S&T-109
-------
12
effects on human health. In FY 2008, the program will continue to support the Agency's
recent CAMR.
13
To better understand the implications of CAMR, the program will continue to collect and
analyze mercury deposition data to study whether mercury "hot spots" exist. In coordination
with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), EPA will also study the aquatic fate and
transport of mercury in order to better understand the relationship between emissions and
mercury concentrations in fish tissue, an important pathway to human exposure.
In collaboration with the Department of Energy and others, research will focus on source
emissions monitors, which power plants use to report emissions for CAMR's trading program.
The program also will provide information on the cost and performance of mercury control
technologies, with an emphasis on technologies that can control multiple pollutants.
Performance Targets:
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 2006
Actual
25
FY 2006
Target
25
FY 2007
Target
30
FY 2008
Target
35
Units
States
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of public
health outcomes long-
term goal.
FY 2006
Actual
100%
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of mechanistic
data long-term goal.
FY 2006
Actual
92%
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
12EPA, Office of Research and Development, Mercury Research Mu Iti-Year Plan. Washington, D.C.: EPA (2003).
See http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/mercurv.pdf.
13 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/.
S&T-110
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of aggregate
and cumulative risk
long-term goal.
FY 2006
Actual
100%
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the
susceptible
subpopulations long-
term goal.
FY 2006
Actual
100%
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
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 2006
Actual
Data Lag
FY 2006
Target
307
FY 2007
Target
292
FY 2008
Target
277
Units
Average
Days
In 2008, the Human Health research program plans to accomplish its goals of completing and
delivering 100% of its planned outputs. Additionally, the program plans to meet its efficiency
goal of reducing the average time for processing research grants to 277 days. In achieving these
targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and
policy decisions related to the human health.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$126.5) This technical adjustment realigns workforce support costs (such as capital
equipment and repairs and improvement) across the research program to better reflect FY
2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (+$114.8) This reflects an increase in funding for mercury research to support the
Agency's recent Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) through efforts such as investigation
of mercury deposition, transport, and fate.
• (+$75.0) This increase provides funds for program evaluations in the Ecosystem
Protection Research program.
S&T-lll
-------
• (+$57.2) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (+$47.5) This is a technical adjustment to realign travel resources across the research
program to better reflect FY 2008 programmatic priorities. There will be no
programmatic impact.
• (-$8,800.0) This reflects reductions to lower priority extramural components of the
human health and ecosystems research program. Specific details are as follows:
o (-$5,750.8) This reflects a reduction to the extramural component of the EMAP
program, inhouse research associated with major areas of EMAP, such as Coastal and
Central Basin, will continue in FY 2008.
o (-$2,549.2) This reflects a reduction of funding for web-based systems to deliver
research products (e.g., ECOTOX), While the extramural resources supporting these
efforts are being reduced or eliminated, inhouse research related to these programs
will continue in FY 2008.
o (-$500.0) This reflects a reduction of support for human health exposure models and
research related to interpretation of exposure paths/routes.
• (-$5,886.5) This redirection from human health and ecosystems research reflects a shift to
support high priority research in several areas, including Clean Air, Human Health Risk
Assessment (HHRA), and Sustainability, as described below:
o (-$3,206.6) A redirection out of human health research will reduce lower priority
projects to allow greater emphasis in related problem-driven efforts in HHRA and
Clean Air. In addition, EPA will continue to fund critical core research to address
health risks of susceptible subpopulations, (such as mechanistic work, aggregate and
cumulative risk assessments, and the Children's Environmental Health Centers) and
will meet critical performance commitments.
o (-$2,679.9) A redirection out of ecosystem protection research will reduce efforts to
evaluate the effectiveness of stream riparian restoration actions, assistance for the
development of watershed management plans, and support for the use of probability
designs to evaluate ecological improvements. However, this shift will allow greater
emphasis in related problem-driven efforts in water quality, clean air, and
Sustainability research. In addition, EPA will continue to fund its critical core
research needs to provide the scientific underpinning for assessing the chemical,
physical and biological threats to ecosystems and will meet critical performance
commitments.
• (-$878.3) This reflects a decrease for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$424.0) This reflects a reduced investment in information technology (IT), which will
be made possible through standardization, consolidation, and centralization of some IT
S&T-112
-------
services, and replacing some local administrative support systems with Agency or
organization-wide solutions.
• (-$690.4) This reflects efficiencies in administrative processes resulting from
consolidation of Headquarters administrative functions (e.g., processing of training,
travel, personnel action, procurement, etc.) and staff.
• (-$8.5) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (-12.3 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This includes
realignment of 5.5 total workyears from core research in the human health and
ecosystems program to support related problem-driven efforts in pesticides and toxics
focused on developing and evaluating a metabolic simulator, exposure methods and
models, and potential low cost lead test kit methods. 4.8 FTE of this reduction reflects
efficiencies gained in EPA's Research and Development's IT and administrative
activities. 2.0 FTE of this reduction is a realignment of support for the development of
watershed management plans, including TMDLs and the prioritization of watershed
restoration activities, and wildlife vulnerability assessments of the stresses associated
with habitat loss and alteration. These reductions will not impede Agency efforts to
maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; SOW A; ERDDA; CWA; FIFRA; FFDCA; RCRA; FQPA; TSCA.
S&T-113
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
S&T-114
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$12,101.5
$617.2
$828.4
$22,210.2
$35,757.3
141.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,552.8
$651.3
$903.1
$21,963.9
$34,071.1
142.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,737.0
$660.0
$901.0
$20,081.0
$32,379.0
141.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$184.2
$8.7
($2.1)
($1,882.9)
($1,692.1)
-1.5
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 address resource conservation, corrective action, hazardous waste treatment, multimedia
modeling, alternative landfills, leaching, modeling, landfill bioreactors, and nanomaterial fate,
transport, and life cycle assessment.
Research is guided by the long term Waste Research Strategy1., which was developed with
participation from major clients and outlines research needs and priorities. These research efforts
are guided by the Land Multi-Year Plan (MYP)2, developed with input from across the Agency,
which outlines 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.
The Land Protection and Restoration research program was reviewed by EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory committee comprised of qualified,
independent scientists and engineers—in FY 2006 (December 2005). The BOSC found that the
program generates high quality products and conducts appropriately focused multi-disciplinary
research.
EPA, Office of Research and Development, Waste Research Strategy. Washington, D.C.: EPA. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/wastepub.pdf
For more information, see 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
merged 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. The new plan will be posted when peer review comments are addressed in the second quarter of FY 2007.
S&T-115
-------
In addition, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) conducted an independent review of the
Contaminated Sites and RCRA multi-year plans in 2004 and released its final report in May
2005. The report is available on the EPA website at
http://www.epa.gov/sciencel/pdf/contaminated_sites_rcra_sab-05-009.pdf. 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.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In response to a BOSC recommendation to shift part of the research program to emerging issues
and the strategic priority of nanomaterial environmental and human health issues, a shift in the
research program to address nanotechnology fate and transport research issues will be made for
FY2008. Additional suggestions from both the SAB review and the BOSC review also are
being incorporated into the research program.
For nanotechnology fate and transport research, the primary objective will be to determine the
physicochemical properties controlling the movement of nanomaterials through soil and aquatic
ecosystems. Research questions include the identification of system parameters that alter the
surface characteristics of nanomaterials through aggregation (e.g., pH effects), complexation
(e.g., surface complexation by dissolved organic carbon) or changes in oxidation state (e.g.,
chemical- or biological-mediated electron transfer). Lifecycle issues also will be addressed.
This work will provide the basis for prioritizing potential ecological exposure pathways that
warrant further exploration and complement funded Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants
in the Human Health and Ecosystems program.
The Agency's efforts are coordinated with other Federal agencies through the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI),3 which the Administration has identified as a FY 2008
research and development budget priority.4 EPA's nanotechnology research is also guided by a
draft research needs document being prepared by the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health
Implications Working Group.5 EPA will move to become a Federal leader for environmental
fate and transport research as outlined in the NNI draft research needs document.
EPA also will continue to collaborate with the private sector to conduct field sampling. In
addition, EPA will work with 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).
Recovering landfill space by accelerating waste degradation is an alternative approach to
meeting EPA's Solid Waste and Emergency Response program's draft strategic target of
3 For more information, see http://www.nano.gov/.
4 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology
Policy, FY 2008 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities. Washington, D.C.: OMB (2006), 5.
See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2006/m06-17.pdf.
5 For more information, see http://www.nano.gov/html/societv/NEHLhtm.
S&T-116
-------
decreasing landfill disposal and incineration by 11 million tons (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. FY2008 products will include a leach testing methodology to improve
predictions of chemical mobilization due to various disposal and use scenarios.
In 2006, the Land Protection and Restoration Research Program received an "adequate" rating in
its first PART review. EPA and OMB continue to work to finalize appropriate ambitious
performance measures, develop and implement a protocol for improved budget-performance
integration, and develop a new efficiency measure that captures the cost effectiveness of research
activities. To this end, OMB, EPA, and members of the Board of Scientific Counselors formed a
workgroup to discuss long-term measurement of EPA's research and development programs. As
part of the workgroup, EPA has devised program-specific questions to be addressed by the
BOSC and used in support of long-term measurement. To identify appropriate outcome-oriented
efficiency measures for research programs, EPA is soliciting input from the National Academy
of Sciences.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Avg. time (in days) for
technical support
centers to process and
respond to requests for
technical document
review, statistical
analysis and evaluation
of characterization and
treatability study plans
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
32.5
FY 2007
Target
30.5
FY 2008
Target
29
Units
Days
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the manage
material streams,
conserve resources and
appropriately manage
waste long-term goal.
FY 2006
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the
mitigation,
management and long-
FY 2006
Actual
96
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
S&T-117
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
term stewardship of
contaminated sites
long-term goal.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
Work under this program supports EPA's Enhance Science and Research objective.
Performance measures for this specific program project are included under the Superfund Land
Protection and Restoration program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$685.5) This realignment will support research in nanotechnology fate and transport
and research to develop a leach testing methodology to improve predictions of chemical
mobilization.
• (+$131.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$4.1) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (+$0.9) This is a technical adjustment to realign travel resources across the research
program to better reflect FY 2008 programmatic priorities. There will be no
programmatic impact.
• (-$466.1) This technical adjustment realigns workforce support costs (such as capital
equipment and repairs and improvement) across the research program to better reflect
FY 2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (-$117.3) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (-$54.4) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$0.4) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (-0.4 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction reflects
efficiencies gained in EPA's Research and Development IT and administrative activities
and will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying
out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
S&T-118
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
S&T-119
-------
Research: Economics and Decision Science(EDS)
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$2,487.6
$2,487.6
3.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,494.6
$2,494.6
3.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,494.6)
($2,494.6)
-3.0
*In FY 2006, Program/Project Research: Pollution Prevention (B6) was eliminated and Program/Projects Research:
Economics and Decision Science (EDS) (H7) and Research: Sustainability (H8) established.
Program Project Description:
Economics and Decision Science (EDS) research is designed to improve EPA's decision making,
cost-benefit analyses, and implementation strategies.1 EDS research focuses on areas such as:
• How people value their health and the environment;
• Corporate and consumer environmental behavior; and
• Market mechanisms and incentives.
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 have been used in
crafting state and Federal environmental policies. For example, EPA's Agencywide guidelines
for cost-benefit analyses cite 10 peer-reviewed, academic articles sponsored by the EDS
program2 (R&D Criteria: Quality).
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA's resources for Economics and Decision Science will move to the Office of
Policy, Economics, and Innovation under the Regulatory and Economic Analysis program.
Refer to the Regulatory and Economic Analysis program for a discussion of activities in FY
2008.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Enhance Science and Research objective. Currently,
there are no PART performance measures for this specific program.
1 For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/science/economics.
2 EPA, Office of the Administrator, Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington, D.C.: EPA (2000).
Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/Sfile/Guidelines.pdf.
S&T-120
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,070.8) This reduction represents a redirection from the Office of Research and
Development's (ORD's) Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program for Economics and
Decision Science research to the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation's
Regulatory and Economic Analysis program. Beginning in FY 2008, EDS activities will
be directed at critical applied research needs of EPA. The selection of research areas to be
funded will draw on EPA's Environmental Economics Research Strategy.
• (-$994.6) This reduction represents a discontinuation of the Economics and Decision
Science research program in FY 2008.
• (-$429.27-3.0 FTE ) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will
help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This represents the
transfer of this program's personnel and related payroll resources to the Office of Policy,
Economics, and Innovation. These reductions will not impede Agency efforts to
maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; CWA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SARA; TSCA.
S&T-121
-------
Research: Sustainability
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$27,042.4
$292.0
$27,334.4
86.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$21,404.9
$0.0
$21,404.9
77.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$22,478.0
$0.0
$22,478.0
76.2
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,073.1
$0.0
$1,073.1
-1.1
*In FY 2006, Program/Project Research: Pollution Prevention (B6) was eliminated and Program/Projects Research:
Economics and Decision Science (EDS) (H7) and Research: Sustainability (H8) established.
Program Project Description:
EPA's Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS) program is designed to advance
Sustainability goals. Specifically, this program is linked to supporting Agency-identified
Sustainability goals in the areas of air, ecosystems, energy, land, materials, and water.
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.
The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Environmental Engineering Committee reviewed EPA's
Sustainability Research Strategy and Science for Technology Multi-Year Plan in June 2006.
While the STS research program contains several new elements as a result of this review, such as
the development of metrics and systems-based environmental management practices, it also
draws upon ongoing efforts that include: 1) a multi-disciplinary Sustainable Environmental
Systems program; 2) a decision support tools program which has championed the use of life
cycle assessment methods and developed the Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemical
and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI), an environmental impact tool; and 3) a successful
grant program: the People, Prosperity, and the Planet (P3) Student Design Competition for
Sustainability.
Specific Sustainability research areas include:
• Sustainability Metrics: As sustainable solutions to environmental problems are
developed and implemented, there is a need to measure the progress and impact of these
S&T-122
-------
efforts. The research in this area is focused on developing scientifically-based
sustainability metrics and indices that will provide policy makers and citizens with a suite
of measurement tools that are both readily accessible and easily understood. The long-
term objective is to develop sustainability metrics that are suitable for use in the
Agency's Report on the Environment. The initial suite of metrics is scheduled to be
available in FY 2011.
• Decision Support Tools:1 This research creates tools and methods for use by public and
private sector decision makers to support the achievement of sustainable outcomes. This
effort is built on the foundation of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) techniques that address the
sustainability of alternative policy options, production pathways, and product usage by
describing the full environmental impact of each alternative.
• Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program:2 As required by the Small
Business Act as amended,3 EPA sets aside 2.5% of its extramural research budget for
contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental
technologies. Funds for this program are allocated to specific programs based on final
resource levels in the appropriated budget. Examples of completed programs include
development of a membrane technology for reducing NOx emissions from diesel engines,
a novel hybrid sorbent to remove arsenic from drinking water systems, and a safe,
effective new technology for detecting and removing lead paint.
• National Environmental Technology Competition (NETC):4 The People, Prosperity, and
the Planet (P3) Award5 is a student competition to develop solutions to sustainability
challenges. For example, a joint student team from Oberlin College and Brown
University created a low-cost system that students can use to monitor energy and water
consumption at various scales, from individual dormitory floors to their entire college
campus.
• Sustainable Environmental Systems (SES):6 The SES program develops methodologies
for understanding and managing large, complex environmental systems such as
metropolitan areas and watersheds. For example, one of the projects uses an auction-
based market incentive approach to harness the deliberative decision process of local
property owners to address water quality problems stemming from urban stormwater
runoff.
It is the long term goal of the STS Program to promote and support national and regional
sustainability policies and initiatives by ensuring that decision-makers within the EPA and at the
1 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/NRMRL/std/sab.
2 For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/sbir.
3 U.S. Public Law 219. 79th Congress, 2nd session, 22 July 1982. Small Business Innovation Development Act
of 1982. More information is available at: http://thomas.loc.gOv/cgi-bin/bdquery/z7d097:s.881:.
4 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/etop/netc.
5 For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/p3.
6 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/NRMRL/std/seb.
S&T-123
-------
local, regional and national levels have a scientifically sound set of management tools that
promote stewardship and sustainability outcomes.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
FY 2008 will mark the first year of a new research effort that is aimed at creating a suite of
science-based sustainability metrics that are readily understood by the public. This work will
address both large and small systems. Research on large scale systems will be aimed at the
sustainable management of a regional ecosystem that includes a National Park. Small system
research will focus on the development of sustainability metrics for use in the design and
creation of new chemicals of commerce. Ultimately, this body of work will be extended to
include the validation of these measures in real world settings with outside collaborators.
In FY 2008, 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 addition, EPA will issue a new solicitation to support
this effort, as well as a solicitation under the SBIR program that will be directed toward the
support of environmental technology needs identified by EPA program and regional offices.
In FY 2008, the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)7 program will operate using
funding from external sources such as vendors, other Federal programs, states and local
government, and trade organizations. Expected products in FY 2008 include additional test
protocols and verifications in several technology areas: biomass co-fired boilers; remote optical
imaging technology for chemical leak detection; pesticide spray drift reduction; and microbial
resistant wallboard.
In 2003, EPA's sustainability research program, under the program title "Pollution Prevention
and New Technologies Research" received a "results not demonstrated" in its PART review.
The program was rated "results not demonstrated" due to its lack of adequate strategic planning
and performance measures. However, EPA has taken steps to address these deficiencies through
the development of a new Multi-Year Plan as well as annual and long term performance and
efficiency measures that will be finalized in consultation with OMB.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Enhance Science and Research objective. Currently,
there are no PART performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$677.2) This increase will support the P3 Student Design Competition for
Sustainability program. This annual program supports over 500 college students in 50 to
70 teams and will issue its next solicitation in FY 2008. The additional funding for the P3
program will be used to support additional P3 awardees (currently 42 awards at $10
thousand each or less) and Phase II grant recipients (currently 6 awards up to $75
7 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/etv.
S&T-124
-------
thousand each). The program also will benefit from increased activities to enhance the
efforts of the P3 Award recipients to commercialize and implement their projects
realizing environmental and human health benefits. Building upon the successful designs
of past P3 awardees, the STS Multi-Year Plan expects to foster/facilitate the
commercialization of several innovative technologies to address sustainability issues
beginning in FY 2010.
• (+$480.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$125.0) This increase provides funds for program evaluations in the Sustainability
research program.
• (+$11.1) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (-$90.2) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (-$44.1) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$31.2) This technical adjustment realigns workforce support costs (such as capital
equipment and repairs and improvement) across the research program to better reflect
FY 2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (-$54.9) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (-1.1 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction reflects
efficiencies gained in EPA's Research and Development IT and administrative activities
and will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying
out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; CWA; FIFRA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SBA; SARA; TSCA.
S&T-125
-------
Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention
S&T-126
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$28,343.3
$28,343.3
131.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$26,223.7
$26,223.7
122.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$24,795.0
$24,795.0
126.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($1,428. 7)
($1,428.7)
4.1
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 and products of biotechnology
that pose unreasonable risk, as well as assessing and reducing the risks of chemicals and products
of biotechnology already in commerce. This research complements work conducted under the
Human Health and Ecosystem Research, the Human Health Risk Assessment, and the Endocrine
Disrupters Research programs. The development and validation of methods and assessments for
predicting risks from pesticides, toxic substances, and products of biotechnology 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 Strategy1 and the Wildlife Research
Strategy,2 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)3 that outlines steps for meeting these needs, as well as
annual performance goals and measures for evaluating progress.
The Pesticides and Toxics research program is scheduled to undergo an external peer review by
EPA's research oversight body, the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), in February 2007.
1 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Biotechnology Research Strategy. Washington, DC: EPA.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/filesMotechnologv_researchj3rogram_4_8_05.pdf.
2U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Wildlife Research Strategy. Washington, D.C.: EPA. Available
at: http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/files/wildlife research strategy 2 2 05.pdf.
3U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Multi-Year Plan. Washington,
D.C.: EPA (2003). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/safecomm.pdf.
S&T-127
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, research will continue to provide the scientific foundation for three major areas of
the Pesticides and Toxics research program.
1) EPA will provide research on methods, models, and data to support prioritization of
testing requirements, enhanced interpretation of data to improve human health and
ecological risk assessments, and decision-making regarding specific individual or classes
of pesticides and toxic substances that are of high priority. 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.
EPA scientists will work collaboratively with scientists from the two Environmental
Bioinformatic Research Centers that were awarded under the Computational Toxicology
Research program in FY 2006 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
Administration4. Research in response to EPA's more immediate needs for decision-
making includes: 1) characterizing toxicity and pharmacokinetic profiles of
perfluoroalkyl chemicals; 2) examining the potential for selected perfluorinated telomers
to degrade to perfluoroctanoic acid or its precursors; and 3) developing methods and
models to forecast the fate of pesticides and byproducts from source waters through
drinking water treatment systems and ultimately to the U.S. population (R&D Criteria:
Relevance, Quality, Performance).
2) Research conducted in FY 2008 will support the development of probabilistic risk
assessments to protect natural populations of birds, fish, other wildlife, and non-target
plants. 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 also will 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-
4 FY 2007 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities memo by J. Marburger and J. Bolten: July
8, 2005.
S&T-128
-------
level risks to wildlife populations from multiple stressors (R&D Criteria: Relevance,
Quality, Performance).
3) Additionally, EPA will provide biotechnology research to support decision-making
related to products of biotechnology. In FY 2008, the Agency is initiating a limited
cross-laboratory effort to implement a cost-effective monitoring program designed to
assess changes in pesticide exposure and associated environmental effects accompanying
genetically engineered crop adoptions. In addition, within EPA's research laboratories
and through its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, methods are being
developed to assess the potential allergenicity of genetically engineered plants (R&D
Criteria: Relevance, Quality, and Performance).
The Safe Pesticides/Safe Products research program is scheduled to be assessed in the spring of
calendar year 2007. EPA is continually working to develop appropriate annual and long-term
output and outcome measures for this program. Additionally, EPA is working to develop useful
efficiency measures to guide program management decisions and improvement strategies.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Enhance Science and Research objective. Currently,
there are no approved performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$763.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$5.6) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (+4.1 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This includes a 5.5 FTE
realignment of total workyears from core research in the human health and ecosystems
program to support related problem-driven efforts in pesticides and toxics focused on
developing and evaluating a metabolic simulator, exposure methods and models, and
potential low cost lead test kit methods. This total also includes a 1.4 FTE reduction that
reflects efficiencies gained in EPA's Office of Research and Development's IT and
administrative activities. These changes will not impede Agency efforts to maximize
efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
• (-$1,101.6) Resources are being redirected to support priorities in the Clean Air and
Human Health Risk Assessment research programs. While this shift will affect progress
in some areas, such as the development of a High Throughput approach to screening
compounds, FY 2008 resources will continue to support the most critical pesticides and
toxics research needs.
S&T-129
-------
• (-$796.0) This reduces funding for research to assess the impacts of genetically modified
plants and to provide data on degradation products and treatment studies of pesticides in
drinking water.
• (-$179.8) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or
contract management services.
• (-$91.7) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (-$27.4) This technical adjustment realigns workforce support costs (such as capital
equipment and repairs and improvement) across the research program to better reflect
FY 2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (-$1.6) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
Statutory Authority:
FQPA; FIFRA; TSCA; CWA; CAA.
S&T-130
-------
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
S&T-131
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$90,252.9
$3,101.9
$93,354.8
581.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$99,121.0
$3,243.1
$102,364.1
583.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$96,967.0
$3,416.0
$100,383.0
584.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,154.0)
$172.9
($1,981.1)
0.2
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 (NPDWRs) 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the drinking water technical support program will:
• Provide technical and scientific support for the development and implementation of
drinking water regulations. This includes the development of methods for updating rules
and responding to technical implementation questions regarding the entire range of
NPDWRs, including the Surface Water Treatment Rule; Long Term 1 and 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rules ("LT1" and "LT2," respectively); Stage 1 and 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rules ("Stage 1" and "Stage 2," respectively);
Total Coliform Rule; Lead and Copper Rule; and Arsenic Rule. TSC also manages the
Quality Assurance and Laboratory Approval programs that support implementation of the
LT2 Rule.
• Continue to implement EPA's Drinking Water Laboratory Certification Program. This
program sets standards and establishes methods for EPA, state, and privately-owned labs
that are analyzing drinking water samples. Through this program, EPA will also conduct
three Regional program reviews during FY 2008. TSC visits each regional office on a
triennial basis and evaluates their oversight of the state labs and the state laboratory
certification programs within their purview.
S&T-132
-------
• Support small drinking water 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 2008, EPA expects that 30 states and 6 regional
office will be working with the Agency to establish, strengthen, and enhance AWOPs.
By 2008, EPA will develop and pilot a performance-based training approach to facilitate
systems treating groundwater sources to obtain key skills specific to groundwater
systems. The performance-based training brings together a group of public water supply
operators from different localities for a series of sessions where they learn key
operational and problem solving skills. Each skill is needed to enable operators to
address the factors limiting optimized performance of their plant.
• Manage the implementation of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rules (UCMR2).
This involves the coordination and review of sampling plans, certification of laboratories,
and review and validation of data.
• Support the Partnership for Safe Water, a national voluntary collaborative effort between
the water industry and EPA to pursue optimization of the drinking water treatment
infrastructure to maximize public health protection.
• Provide analytical method development/validation to enable implementation of the
Nation's drinking water compliance-monitoring and occurrence data gathering.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent population
served by CWS that
receive drinking water
that meets all
applicable health-based
DW standards through
approaches including
effective treatment and
source water
protection.
FY 2006
Actual
89
FY 2006
Target
93
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
90
Units
Percent
Population
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent community
water systems that
provide drinking water
that meets all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards.
FY 2006
Actual
89.4
FY 2006
Target
93
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
89.5
Units
Percent
Systems
S&T-133
-------
The two performance measures displayed above are representative of the work carried out under
this program. These measures were developed in related Program Assessment Rating Tools
(PART): the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, Public Water System Supervision Grant
program and Underground Injection Control Grant program. There are no current PART
measures specifically for this program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$85.0) This request redirects funds from the Drinking Water program in the EPM
appropriation to the same program within the S&T appropriation. This change is an
administrative correction for fixed costs associated with the Cincinnati Technical Support
Center.
• (+$87.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$0.9) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
S&T-134
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2008 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 11
Federal Support for Air Quality Management 13
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program 18
Radiation: Protection 21
Radiation: Response Preparedness 23
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs 25
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund 28
Program Area: Brownfields 31
Brownfields 32
Program Area: Climate Protection Program 34
Climate Protection Program 35
Program Area: Compliance 40
Compliance Assistance and Centers 41
Compliance Incentives 44
Compliance Monitoring 47
Program Area: Enforcement 51
Civil Enforcement 52
Criminal Enforcement 56
Enforcement Training 59
Environmental Justice 61
NEPA Implementation 64
Program Area: Geographic Programs 66
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay 67
Geographic Program: Great Lakes 72
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico 77
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain 80
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound 82
Geographic Program: Other 85
Regional Geographic Initiatives 91
Program Area: Homeland Security 93
Homeland Security: Communication and Information 94
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection 96
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 99
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 101
Program Area: Indoor Air 103
Indoor Air: Radon Program 104
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air 106
-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach 110
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination Ill
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations 114
Exchange Network 118
Small Business Ombudsman 121
Small Minority Business Assistance 123
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness 126
TRI / Right to Know 129
Tribal - Capacity Building 131
Program Area: International Programs 134
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 135
Environment and Trade 138
International Capacity Building 141
POPs Implementation 144
US Mexico Border 146
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 149
Information Security 150
IT / Data Management 152
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review 156
Administrative Law 157
Alternative Dispute Resolution 159
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance 161
Legal Advice: Environmental Program 164
Legal Advice: Support Program 166
Regional Science and Technology 168
Regulatory Innovation 170
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis 175
Science Advisory Board 178
Program Area: Operations and Administration 180
Acquisition Management 181
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 183
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 186
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management 189
Human Resources Management 191
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing 195
Pesticides: Field Programs 196
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides 198
Pesticides: Review / Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides 200
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk 202
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk 207
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability 212
Science Policy and Biotechnology 216
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 218
RCRA: Corrective Action 219
RCRA: Waste Management 222
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling 227
-------
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention 233
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management 234
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction 237
Endocrine Disrupters 242
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program 244
Pollution Prevention Program 248
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) 252
LUST/UST 253
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems 257
Great Lakes Legacy Act 258
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways 261
Wetlands 265
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection 268
Beach / Fish Programs 269
Drinking Water Programs 273
Program Area: Water Quality Protection 280
Marine Pollution 281
Surface Water Protection 286
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Environmental Program & Management
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$2,331,934.7
10,765.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,306,617.0
11,007.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,298,188.0
10,867.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($8,429.0)
-140.5
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
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
FY 2006
Actuals
$17,710.5
$23,221.1
$0.0
$3,119.4
$89,933.6
$93,053.0
$24,332.1
$11,301.6
$2,374.4
$5,560.8
$8,534.7
$186,088.2
$21,848.2
$33,391.6
$2,147.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$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
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$19,388.0
$26,504.0
$2,800.0
$0.0
$87,690.0
$90,490.0
$24,711.0
$10,186.0
$2,928.0
$4,489.0
$9,865.0
$188,561.0
$23,450.0
$43,926.0
$4,436.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$261.6
$825.7
$0.0
$0.0
$2,424.4
$2,424.4
($802.7)
($462.6)
$239.3
($732.4)
($3,500.0)
($1,746.7)
($1,187.3)
($1,796.8)
$15.5
EPM-1
-------
Program Project
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
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
FY 2006
Actuals
$48,154.8
$83,693.9
$83,693.9
$0.0
$27,774.3
$27,774.3
$8,338.9
$172.0
$86,463.1
$86,635.1
$122,748.3
$0.0
$118,560.9
$118,560.9
$41,595.6
$2,655.2
$4,691.5
$12,890.2
$180,393.4
$65,347.2
$22,292.9
$19,251.9
$3,715.9
$3,959.0
$946.0
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
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,565.0
$87,927.0
$87,927.0
$131.0
$29,416.0
$29,547.0
$9,786.0
$1,128.0
$92,300.0
$93,428.0
$132,761.0
$810.0
$125,835.0
$126,645.0
$39,688.0
$3,145.0
$3,822.0
$14,366.0
$187,666.0
$0.0
$28,768.0
$21,757.0
$4,457.0
$934.0
$467.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,135.0)
($3,916.3)
($3,916.3)
$19.8
$636.5
$656.3
$83.8
$141.1
$268.1
$409.2
$1,149.3
$56.8
$5,810.5
$5,867.3
$1,894.5
$641.3
($37.0)
$578.5
$8,944.6
$0.0
$2,370.3
$1,179.9
$146.3
$0.2
$0.1
EPM-2
-------
Program Project
Geographic Program: Other
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
Lake Pontchartrain
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
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
FY 2006
Actuals
$2,307.8
$0.0
$1,148.2
$4,725.6
$8,181.6
$7,717.1
$66,064.4
$318.1
$4,961.9
$5,280.0
$43.6
$4,673.8
$4,717.4
$5.0
$1,654.2
$1,659.2
$8,845.1
$20,501.7
$7,418.0
$19,023.2
$26,441.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$978.0
$4,448.4
$3,623.6
$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
$0.0
$3,328.7
$6,268.9
$23,640.0
$5,519.2
$23,464.3
$28,983.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,000.0
$978.0
$3,448.0
$3,149.0
$8,575.0
$9,553.0
$74,511.0
$500.0
$6,406.0
$6,906.0
$99.0
$7,688.0
$7,787.0
$3,380.0
$1.0
$3,381.0
$6,345.0
$24,419.0
$5,429.0
$21,440.0
$26,869.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,000.0
$0.0
($1,000.4)
($474.6)
($475.0)
$415.7
$3,637.5
($700.0)
$806.3
$106.3
$0.0
$544.3
$544.3
$51.3
$1.0
$52.3
$76.1
$779.0
($90.2)
($2,024.3)
($2,114.5)
EPM-3
-------
Program Project
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
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
FY 2006
Actuals
$5,695.1
$48,586.7
$8,582.4
$18,725.7
$2,498.5
$1,950.4
$11,576.0
$13,914.4
$11,841.6
$123,370.8
$4,229.9
$1,695.8
$7,687.0
$1,707.9
$8,145.2
$23,465.8
$4,198.5
$98,871.4
$103,069.9
$4,289.0
$1,004.4
$10,674.8
$35,237.7
$13,454.0
$3,772.5
$22,671.1
$16,592.7
$4,555.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$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
$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
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,203.0
$49,747.0
$0.0
$15,364.0
$3,261.0
$2,466.0
$12,960.0
$15,728.0
$11,477.0
$117,206.0
$4,022.0
$1,945.0
$5,311.0
$1,831.0
$4,646.0
$17,755.0
$5,583.0
$91,019.0
$96,602.0
$5,260.0
$1,175.0
$11,240.0
$39,366.0
$13,986.0
$3,574.0
$23,866.0
$20,104.0
$4,790.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$139.2
($2,395.7)
$0.0
($684.5)
($240.7)
($180.6)
$451.6
$484.6
$41.3
($2,384.8)
($115.0)
$83.8
($1,079.3)
$22.3
($1,415.0)
($2,503.2)
$20.9
($5,788.2)
($5,767.3)
$399.1
($54.8)
$186.3
$1,840.5
$520.1
$53.3
($1,987.6)
$2,549.2
$174.3
EPM-4
-------
Program Project
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: Protect Human Health from
Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from
Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability
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
FY 2006
Actuals
$112,252.0
$23,040.8
$70,768.6
$336,980.6
$22,280.0
$42,966.8
$496,036.8
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$24,627.9
$39,406.5
$54,507.5
$2,035.3
$120,577.2
$38,425.9
$66,819.2
$12,067.4
$117,312.5
$9,090.4
$41,500.9
$7,350.1
$12,087.0
$17,744.8
$87,773.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$119,680.6
$25,418.3
$83,548.1
$294,760.1
$21,847.0
$40,202.5
$465,776.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$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
$7,985.4
$11,367.6
$21,292.4
$93,018.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$123,361.0
$29,992.0
$74,960.0
$303,728.0
$23,439.0
$40,175.0
$472,294.0
$62,514.0
$41,750.0
$12,114.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,780.0
$118,158.0
$39,573.0
$69,158.0
$13,666.0
$122,397.0
$5,654.0
$45,046.0
$5,890.0
$13,546.0
$19,935.0
$90,071.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$3,680.4
$4,573.7
($8,588.1)
$8,967.9
$1,592.0
($27.5)
$6,518.0
$62,514.0
$41,750.0
$12,114.0
($24,926.3)
($39,767.6)
($51,814.6)
$26.0
($104.5)
($799.3)
$1,270.7
$1,430.9
$1,902.3
($2,082.5)
$409.0
($2,095.4)
$2,178.4
($1,357.4)
($2,947.9)
EPM-5
-------
Program Project
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
Energy Policy Act Implementation
LUST / UST (other activities)
Subtotal, LUST/UST
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (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 2006
Actuals
$0.0
$9,042.3
$9,042.3
$9,042.3
$26,771.7
$26,294.4
$19,842.5
$72,908.6
$3,593.8
$90,252.9
$93,846.7
$10,846.3
$5,480.4
$182,825.7
$188,306.1
$199,152.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$11,713.7
$0.0
$11,713.7
$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 2008
Pres Bud
$11,707.0
$12.0
$11,719.0
$11,719.0
$35,000.0
$17,203.0
$21,518.0
$73,721.0
$2,830.0
$96,967.0
$99,797.0
$12,851.0
$7,121.0
$188,971.0
$196,092.0
$208,943.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($6.7)
$12.0
$5.3
$5.3
($14,600.0)
($1,214.2)
$525.8
($15,288.4)
$176.1
($2,154.0)
($1,977.9)
$388.6
$0.3
$4,504.5
$4,504.8
$4,893.4
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 2006
Actuals
$17,710.5
$8,036.1
$25,746.6
89.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$19,126.4
$9,259.4
$28,385.8
92.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$19,388.0
$8,259.0
$27,647.0
89.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$261.6
($1,000.4)
($738.8)
-3.1
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. The Clean Air
Interstate Air Quality Rule relies on existing authorities to reduce emissions which contribute to
interstate transport and interfere with other States' ability to meet the PM 2.5 and ozone
standards. Using a market-based approach, CAIR is projected to reduce pollution from electrical
power generation sources by close to 70%, when fully implemented.
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), 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, in 2005, there were approximately 2,570
affected and operating units in the 19 NBP states and D.C.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, through the Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs, EPA is projected to measure,
quality assure, and track emissions for SO2 and/or NOX from continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMs) or equivalent monitoring methods at approximately 4,500 electric utility units
and 330 industrial units. In addition, the Program will conduct audits and certify emissions
EPM-8
-------
monitors. Through the 862 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
approximately 980 coal-fired utility boilers with the Acid Rain NOX emission rate reduction
program.
By FY 2008, the NOX Budget Program (NBP) will have expanded to 20 states and D.C. EPA
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 NBP sources include boilers, turbines, and combined cycle
units from a diverse set of industries as well as electric utility units. EPA also will assist NBP
states in transitioning their sources and allowances into the CAIR seasonal NOX trading program.
Six additional states and approximately 800 additional units will be affected under the CAIR
seasonal program for reducing transported ozone pollution. Required NOX monitoring for CAIR
begins in 2008, or earlier for states and sources interested in qualifying for early emissions
reduction credits.
In 2003, OMB assessed the Acid Rain program through the PART process and gave it a rating of
"moderately effective." EPA is working to develop and implement an industry-oriented measure
of program efficiency that takes into consideration the full cost of the program. The National
Ambient Air Quality Standards Federal program, PARTed in 2005, received a rating of
"adequate." EPA is working to 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.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Tons of sulfur dioxide
emissions from electric
power generation
sources
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
7,000,000
FY 2007
Target
7,500,000
FY 2008
Target
8,000,000
Units
Tons
Reduced
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent change in
average sulfur
deposition and mean
ambient sulfate
concentrations
reduced.
FY 2006
Actual
No Target
Established
FY 2006
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2007
Target
29
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent change in
average nitrogen
FY 2006
Actual
No Target
Established
FY 2006
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2007
Target
10
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percentage
EPM-9
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
deposition and mean
total ambient nitrate
concentrations
reduced.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
Reducing emissions of SC>2 and NOX continues 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 SO2 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 SC>2 and NOX. The
Agency tracks Percent change in average sulfur and nitrogen deposition and mean ambient
sulfate and nitrate concentrations triennially. There are no FY 2008 performance targets; the
next planned report date is FY 2010.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$260.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-3.1 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align regional resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions
will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out
its programs.
• (+$1.6) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
C.A.A. (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
EPM-10
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$23,221.1
$23,221.1
104.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,678.3
$25,678.3
105.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$26,504.0
$26,504.0
105.8
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$825.7
$825.7
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 (CAA) 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 has
established 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The following chart illustrates EPA's schedule to review criteria pollutants and the current status
of the NAAQS reviews:
Proposal
December 20 10
May 2007
March 2009
February 2008
September 2009
March 20 10
Criteria Pollutant*
Next PM
Ozone
CO
Lead
Nitrogen Dioxide*
Primary
Secondary
Sulfur Dioxide*
Final
September 20 11
February 2008
November 2009
August 2008
May 2010
November 20 10
EPM-11
-------
November 2009
February 2010
Primary
Secondary
August 2010
November 2010
* The schedules for reviewing the SO2 & NO2 standards are under litigation and subject to change
EPA will increasingly examine opportunities to meet multiple CAA requirements for stationary
sources in more integrated ways, resulting in fewer individual standards in preference for rules
that meet multiple CAA objectives for controlling both criteria and hazardous air pollutants in
more consistent, cost-effective, and economically efficient ways. EPA will work with the
regulated community to develop ways to optimize control of pollutant emissions through
strategies that reach beyond classical source categories to allow for more flexible and cost-
effective sector-based approaches.
The NAAQS Federal program, PARTed in 2005, received a rating of "adequate." EPA is
working to 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.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
noncancer risk)
emissions of air toxics
from 1993 baseline.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2006
Target
58
FY 2007
Target
58
FY 2008
Target
59
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
cancer risk) emissions
of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2006
Target
34
FY 2007
Target
35
FY 2008
Target
35
Units
Percentage
• Performance targets for reduction of toxicity weighted emissions are also supported by
work under the Federal Support for Air Toxics program project.
• Implementation of the MACT standards is expected to result in the reduction of over 1.7
million tons of hazardous air pollutants.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$825.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$0.3) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
EPM-12
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$93,053.0
$9,647.9
$102,700.9
706.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$88,065.6
$10,272.9
$98,338.5
709.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$90,490.0
$10,886.0
$101,376.0
700.7
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$2,424.4
$613.1
$3,037.5
-8.3
Program Project Description:
The Federal support program assists 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
help to reduce emissions from stationary and mobile sources; however, States and Tribes have
the primary responsibility for developing 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 or measurements 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
U.S. borders that pose risks to public health and air quality within the U.S. This program also
supports the development of risk assessment methodologies for the criteria air pollutants.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to improve its air quality management and assessment approaches in FY
2008, consistent with recent National Research Council (NRC) recommendations. EPA will: (1)
develop a more integrated multiple pollutant management framework that incorporates criteria
and toxics air pollutants; (2) more aggressively incorporate ecosystem impacts, community
effects, and future air quality and climate interactions; and, (3) actively assess progress of air
programs through an accountability framework.
EPM-13
-------
EPA will continue to support the revised particulate matter (PM) NAAQS by developing policies
to address implementation issues, especially transition issues between the previous 1997 and new
2006 standards. EPA will continue to assist state, Tribal, and local agencies by assessing and
developing potential regional and national strategies, both regulatory and non-regulatory, for
reducing criteria and hazardous air pollutants. Integrating these efforts will allow industrial and
commercial sectors to pursue controls in more cost-effective ways that also consider
opportunities for optimizing the control of criteria and hazardous air pollutants. EPA will
classify areas as attaining or not attaining the new 2006 PM2.5 standards.
EPA will continue to implement the reform recommendations of the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee's Subcommittee on Air Quality Management, focusing on both near-term and longer-
term improvements. In addition, EPA 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, and provide technical and policy
assistance to states developing regional haze implementation plans.
EPA, in concert with the Department of Justice, will continue to support litigation related to the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and will implement the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP). These two actions will ensure that the CAIR reductions occur in the timeframe required to
support: attainment of the PM2.5; ozone NAAQS; and assessment of particle pollution, ozone
and the transport of particle pollution. Additionally, the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan will
provide support to states and Tribes in developing control strategies for attaining and
maintaining the PM2.5 NAAQS and the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and improvement of PM2.5
measurement methods.
EPA will continue to assist state, local and Tribal agencies in implementing national programs
and assessing their effectiveness. EPA uses 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
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/). EPA will enhance these tools by developing and applying integrated
multiple pollutant emissions inventory and air quality modeling platforms to provide the
technical underpinnings for more efficient and comprehensive air quality management. In
addition, EPA will continue to implement the National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy to
initiate co-located multiple pollutant monitors to support the development and evaluation of
multiple pollutant air management strategies. EPA will also work closely with the Centers for
Disease and Control (CDC) to expand accountability efforts by working with public health
agencies to assess more broadly the progress of air regulations on public health outcomes.
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.
EPM-14
-------
EPA will continue to strengthen its leadership by addressing transboundary air pollution. EPA
will continue to participate in negotiations under international treaties (e.g., US-Canada,
Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants (POPs)) and to lead and participate in partnerships (e.g., the Global Mercury
Programme partnerships) to address fine particles, ozone, mercury, and POPs; assess trends and
impact on US air quality using sophisticated models; and build capacity to reduce transboundary
air pollution in key regions and countries of the world (e.g., India, China, Mexico).
EPA will continue to improve and automate associated data and technology exchange/transfer.
EPA will complete the modification of the Air Quality System (AQS) to reflect new ambient
monitoring regulations and to ensure that it complies with programmatic needs and EPA's
architecture and data standard requirements. The AQS Data Mart will continue to provide access
to the scientific community and others to obtain air quality data via the internet.
(http://epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs) EPA will complete the design and development of the new
emissions inventory system. After testing, tuning and training, the system will be operational in
mid-2009. This will allow EPA and its stakeholders access to needed information more
efficiently.
EPA will continue to focus on the timely issuance of renewal permits and to respond to petitions
under the Title V operating permits program. EPA also will continue to address monitoring
issues in underlying Federal and state rules. EPA will also take appropriate action to more
broadly improve the Title V program by implementing recommendations from the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee's Task Force on Title V program performance.
(http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/permits/)
EPA will continue its New Source Review 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 Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements 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, and to take any actions necessary to respond to court decisions. EPA will
continue to work with industries on VOC measurement issues.
The NAAQS Federal program, PARTed in 2005, received a rating of "adequate." EPA is
working to 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. The Air Quality Grants and Permitting Program, also
PARTed in 2005, received a rating of "ineffective." EPA has updated current grant allocation
processes to ensure resources are properly targeted, and developed measures of program
efficiency.
EPM-15
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in
population-weighted
ambient concentration
of fine particulate
matter (PM-2. 5) in all
monitored counties
from 2003 baseline.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
2
FY 2007
Target
3
FY 2008
Target
4
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in
population-weighted
ambient concentration
of ozone in monitored
counties from 2003
baseline.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
5
FY 2007
Target
6
FY 2008
Target
8
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of major NSR
permits issued within
one year of receiving a
complete permit
application.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
70
FY 2007
Target
75
FY 2008
Target
78
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of new Title V
operating permits
issued within 18
months of receiving a
complete permit
application.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
83
FY 2007
Target
87
FY 2008
Target
91
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of significant
Title V operating
permit revisions issued
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
91
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
97
Units
Percentage
EPM-16
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
within 1 8 months of
receiving a complete
permit application.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
EPA, collaborating with the states, will continue implementing Federal measures and assisting
with the development of clean air plans to move the remaining PM2.5 nonattainment areas into
attainment by 2015.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3,499.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$998.0) This reduction reflects anticipated efficiency gains from efforts to streamline
the SIP review and NAAQS development processes.
• (-$15.0) This reduction reflects an Agency-wide effort to reduce international travel.
• (-$62.0) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT systems.
• (-8.3 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align regional resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions
will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out
its programs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
EPM-17
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$24,332.1
$2,029.6
$26,361.7
140.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
525,573. 7
$2,264.7
$27,778.4
144.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$24,711.0
$2,252.0
$26,963.0
141.8
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($802.7)
($12.7)
($815.4)
-2.4
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 and communities for:
modeling, inventories, monitoring, assessments, strategy and program development; community-
based toxics programs. EPA also provides support for 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 Bioaccumulate Toxics
(PBT) activities; and, 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
By FY 2008, EPA will have completed 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. For more information visit:
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html)
In addition to meeting CAA requirements, EPA will build on its multi-pollutant and sector pilot
efforts to take advantage of opportunities to increase hazardous air pollutant emissions
reductions in conjunction with criteria air pollutant control programs and strategies.
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 parts: the National Air Toxics Trends
Sites (NATTS), and Local Scale Monitoring (LSM) projects. The NATTS, designed to capture
the impacts of widespread pollutants, is comprised of 22 permanent monitoring sites with 8
additional sites being added in FY2007. The LSMs are comprised of scores of short-term
EPM-18
-------
monitoring projects, each designed to address specific local issues. More community scale
monitoring projects will be initiated in FY 2008. Information on air toxics monitoring is
available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxpg.htm)l.
In addition to meeting CAA requirements, EPA will build on its multi-pollutant and sector pilot
efforts to take advantage of opportunities to increase hazardous air pollutant emissions
reductions in conjunction with criteria air pollutant control programs and strategies.
Additionally, EPA will continue to improve both ambient and source air toxics
measurement/monitoring methods.
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.
Based on recommendations from EPA's 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 waterbodies, including coastal waters. For more
information visit:http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/gr8water/. These efforts involve the
development and support of multi-media approaches to reduce risk and achieve water quality
standards. Up-to-date information regarding multimedia work will be provided to state, local
and Tribal agencies and other organizations.
The Air Toxics program, re-assessed by OMB in 2004 through the PART process, received a
rating of "adequate." EPA is working on improving monitoring systems to fill data gaps and get
a better assessment of actual population exposure to toxic air pollution.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
noncancer risk)
emissions of air toxics
from 1993 baseline.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2006
Target
58
FY 2007
Target
59
FY 2008
Target
59
Units
Percentage
EPM-19
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
cancer risk) emissions
of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2006
Target
34
FY 2007
Target
35
FY 2008
Target
35
Units
Percentage
Performance targets for reduction of toxicity weighted emissions also are supported by work
under the Federal Stationary Source Regulations program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,206.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$10.0) This reduction reflects an Agency-wide effort to reduce international travel.
• (-$2,000.0) This reflects a reduction to lower priority training activities and work related
to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO's). The agency will meet its
obligations outlined in the AFO Consent Agreement and Final Order.
• (+$1.0) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-2.4 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
EPM-20
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$11,301.6
$2,311.9
$1,938.3
$15,551.8
95.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,648.6
$2,054.3
$2,323.3
$15,026.2
96.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,186.0
$2,120.0
$2,373.0
$14,679.0
88.6
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($462.6)
$65.7
$49.7
($347.2)
-8.0
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.1 Other EPA approaches include
radiation clean-up and waste management guidance, radiation pollution prevention, 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 2008 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 standards2, by conducting inspections of waste generator facilities and
evaluating DOE's compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations every 5 years.
EPA will continue protecting people and the environment from harmful and avoidable exposure
to radiation by providing information about radiation and hazards from radioactive materials.
EPA, in partnership with other Federal agencies, will continue to promote the management of
radiation risks in a consistent and safe manner at water treatment facilities, and during cleanups
1 Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/assessment/index.html last accessed 1/5/2007.
2 Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/WIPP/ last accessed 1/5/2007.
EPM-21
-------
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 2008, 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 2008, 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.
Performance Targets:
EPA is on track through its ongoing work to meet its 2011 strategic plan goal of protecting
public health and the environment from unwanted releases of EPA regulated radioactive
pollutants and to minimize impacts to public health from radiation exposure. The Agency is
developing new outcome-oriented strategic and annual performance measures for this program in
preparation for a 2007 PART assessment. The program will have new performance measures to
report in FY 2009. EPA will continue to track progress on routine program indicators such as
preparedness and response capability for radiological incidents.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$4.1) This reflects a realignment of travel funds.
• (-$466.7) 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.
• (-8.0 FTE) This reduces support for lower priority activities associated with radiation
exposure. This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out of this
program's goals. This reduces activities associated with radiation exposure such as
removal of radioactive sources from recycled or manufactured material.
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; NWP Act of 1982; PHSA, as amended, 42 U.S.C 201 et seq.; SOW A; UMTRCA of
1978; WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.
EPM-22
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$2,374.4
$3,263.4
$5,637.8
41.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,688.7
$3,585.9
$6,274.6
42.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,928.0
$3,721.0
$6,649.0
42.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$239.3
$135.1
$374.4
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 Preparedness Coordinating
Committee (FRPCC), supports the federal Advisory Team for Environment, Food, and Health
(the "A-Team") and also maintains its own Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT).
EPA responds to radiological emergencies, conducts national and regional radiological response
planning and training and develops response plans for radiological incidents or accidents.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 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;1 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
approaches. The Agency also will develop guidance for coordination of EPA support with other
Federal and state response agencies.
In addition, EPA will continue to participate in planning, and implementing international and
Federal table-top and field exercises including radiological anti-terrorism activities, with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense
(DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS). EPA also will continue to train state, local
and Federal officials and provide technical support to federal and state radiation, emergency
Additional information can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/ last accessed 1/8/2007.
EPM-23
-------
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 2007 PART assessment. The program will have new performance information to report in
FY 2009. EPA will continue to track progress on routine program indicators such as
preparedness and response capability for radiological incidents.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$238.6) This increase 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.
• (+$0.7) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
Atomic Energy Act 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-24
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$5,560. 8
$5,560.8
27.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,221.4
$5,221.4
27.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,489.0
$4,489.0
23.8
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($732.4)
($732.4)
-3.3
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.1 Increased levels of UV radiation due to ozone depletion may raise the incidence of
skin cancer, cataracts, and other illnesses.2 Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer and
accounts for more than 50 percent of all cancers in adults.3 Increased UV levels have also been
associated with other human and non-human risks, including immune suppression and effects on
aquatic ecosystems and agricultural crops.
EPA estimates that in the United States alone, the worldwide phaseout of ODS will avoid 299
million cases of non-fatal skin cancers and 27.5 million cases of cataracts between 1990 and
2165.4 This estimate is based on the assumption that international ODS phaseout targets will be
achieved, allowing the ozone layer to begin recovery by the middle of this century. 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 ODS.5
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
ODS 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 ODS and requires controls on
various products containing ODS. As a signatory to the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. also is
committed to regulating and enforcing its terms domestically.
1 World Meteorological Organization (WMO). "Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002." WMO: Geneva,
Switzerland. February 2003.
2 World Health Organization. "Solar Radiation and Human Health: Fact Sheet No. 227." August 1999. Accessed December 30,
2003. Available on the Internet at: www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact227.html.
3 American Cancer Society. "What are the Key Statistics for Melanoma?" Accessed December 30,2003. Available on the
Internet at: www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/CRI_0.asp.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010: EPAReportto
Congress. EPA: Washington, DC. November 1999.
s WMO, February 2003.
EPM-25
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In carrying out the requirements of the Act and the Montreal Protocol in FY 2008, EPA will
continue to implement the domestic rulemaking agenda for reduction and control of ODS and
will provide compliance assistance and enforce rules controlling their production, import, and
emission.
In FY 2008, 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.
Pollution prevention is an important element in achieving the ozone protection objective. The
National Emission Reduction Program will require recovery and recycling or reclamation of
ODSs, primarily in the air-conditioning and refrigeration sectors. Also, under the Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP), EPA will review newly developed alternatives to ODS 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 ODS and ensure a smooth transition to non-
ozone depleting alternatives in various sectors.
In 2004, OMB assessed the Stratospheric Ozone program through the PART process, and rated it
as "adequate." The assessment found that the program has a clear purpose, addresses a specific
need, is free of major flaws, and is effectively targeted. Investments in this program will help to
assure that it continues to meet existing performance goals and continues work on performance
measures and targets to track intermediate outcomes by measuring "thickness" of the ozone layer
in the atmosphere.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Remaining US
Consumption of
HCFCs in tons of
Ozone Depleting
Potential (OOP).
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2008
FY 2006
Target
<9,900
FY 2007
Target
<9,900
FY 2008
Target
<9,900
Units
OOP MTs
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
basis 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 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 ODP-weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989 plus the ODP-
weighted level of HCFCs in 1989. Consumption equals production plus import minus
export.
EPM-26
-------
• 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 MT starting in 2010. Further incremental
reductions are required through 2020, until all ODS production and import is phased out
except for exempted amounts.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$292.0, -3.3 FTE) This reduction eliminates funding for the Sun Wise program. This
program provided awareness of health risks from UV radiation and sun safety behaviors
are broadly accepted by the scientific community, public and private sectors.
• (-$429.2) 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.
• (-$11.2) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
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-27
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$8,534.7
$8,534.7
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$13,365.0
$13,365.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,865.0
$9,865.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($3,500.0)
($3,500.0)
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 show that
Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) 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 189 other countries are Parties to the Montreal Protocol. The
United States has affirmed its commitment to this international treaty and to demonstrating world
leadership by phasing out domestic production of ODS, as well as helping other countries find
suitable alternatives.
EPA estimates that, in the United States alone, the worldwide phaseout of ODS 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 CFC and halon production capacity to
eliminate production of 119,648 metric tons.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA's contributions to the Multilateral Fund in FY 2008 will help the Multilateral Fund continue
to support cost-effective projects that are designed to build capacity and eliminate ODS
production and consumption in over 60 developing countries. Today 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 ODS. Over 80% of already
agreed project activities have been implemented to date, with remaining work in these already
agreed projects expected to be fully implemented by 2009. Additional projects will be
EPM-28
-------
considered and approved in accordance with Multilateral Fund guidelines to address the
remaining 9,155 metric tonnes of ODSs (weighted by their potential to damage the ozone layer)
for which there are not yet projects to assist in meeting developing country obligations under the
Montreal Protocol.
In 2004, OMB assessed the Stratospheric Ozone program through the PART process, and rated it
as "adequate." The assessment found that the program has a clear purpose, addresses a specific
need, is free of major flaws, and is effectively targeted. The assessment included a specific
recommendation for continued support of the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Remaining US
Consumption of
HCFCs in tons of
Ozone Depleting
Potential (OOP).
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2008
FY 2006
Target
<9,900
FY 2007
Target
<9,900
FY 2008
Target
<9,900
Units
OOP MTs
Performance targets for ozone layer protection are also supported by work under
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs.
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 ODP-weighted consumption of CFCs in 1989 plus the
ODP-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 MT starting in 2010. Further incremental
reductions are required through 2020, until all ODS production and import is phased out
except for exempted amounts.
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 U.S. and other developed countries, but by all developing nations
worldwide.
EPM-29
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,500.0) This reduction reflects the Multilateral Fund's achievement of implementing
80% of their project activities with remaining work expected to be fully implemented by
2009.
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-30
-------
Program Area: Brownfields
EPM-31
-------
Brownfields
Program Area: Brownfields
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$21,848.2
$21,848.2
117.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$24,637.3
$24,637.3
121.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$23,450.0
$23,450.0
127.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($1,187.3)
($1,187.3)
6.6
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. Revitalizing these once productive properties helps communities by 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. 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: 1) hazardous substances training for organizations representing the interests of states and
Tribal co-implementers of the Brownfields law; and 2) Tribal technical outreach support to
address environmental justice issues and support Brownfields research.
The Smart Growth program works with stakeholders to create an improved economic and
institutional climate for Brownfields redevelopment. The Smart Growth program removes
barriers and creates incentives for Brownfields redevelopment by changing development
standards that affect the viability of Brownfields redevelopment; and creating cross-cutting
solutions that improve the economic, regulatory and institutional climate for Brownfields
redevelopment.
FY 2008 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: the Small
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (SBLRBRA). 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 community. EPA also will provide
technical assistance to communities that were awarded funding to combine smart growth policies
with Brownfields redevelopment. EPA also will conduct further research on incentives for
EPM-32
-------
cleanup that encourage 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.
The Smart Growth program will continue to address critical issues for Brownfield redevelopment
including land assembly, development permitting issues, financing, parking and street standards,
accountability to uniform systems of information for land use controls, and other factors that
influence the economic viability of Brownfields redevelopment.
Performance Targets:
Performance goals and measures for the Brownfields EPM program are currently a component of
the overall Brownfields Program measures. As a result, the Brownfields Projects program also
contributes to the achievement of these performance measures and the Brownfields Categorical
Grant program contributes to the achievement of the "properties assessed" measure. This also
contributes to EPA efforts to assess and clean up Brownfields, as described in EPA's 2006-2011
Strategic Plan.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,747.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$2,917.6) This reflects a reduction in Headquarters expenses including contract support
and cooperative agreements.
• (+$70.0) This increase provides funds for program evaluations in Brownfields.
• (-$73.4) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce international travel as
well as a reduction to program travel expenses in Headquarters and the Regions.
• (-$14.1) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (+6.6 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. The change reflects an
increase in administrative and programmatic support to implement the Brownfields
program, including support for grantee project oversight, state coordination efforts, and
outreach activities.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA as amended by SBLRBRA (Public Law 107-118); RCRA, Section 8001; GMRA
(1990); SWDA; FFGCAA.
EPM-33
-------
Program Area: Climate Protection Program
EPM-34
-------
Climate Protection Program
Program Area: Climate Protection Program
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$83,693.9
$19,650.5
$103,344.4
210.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$91,843.3
$12,549.6
$104,392.9
214.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$87,927.0
$13,104.0
$101,031.0
212.5
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($3,916.3)
$554.4
($3,361.9)
-1.6
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.
EPA manages a number of efforts, such as the ENERGY STAR programs, clean energy
partnerships, and transportation efficiency programs, to remove barriers in the marketplace and
to deploy technology faster. EPA programs do not provide financial subsidies. Instead, they
work by overcoming widely acknowledged barriers to energy efficiency: 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. (For more information visit: www.epa.gov/energystar.html and
www.epa.gov/smartway)
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 reductions in
methane emissions of up to 500 billion cubic feet (Bef) 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. (For more information visit: www.epa.gov/methanetomarkets/)
EPA's Climate Protection Program has encouraged the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) and
other greenhouse gases such as 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. For every dollar spent by EPA on its technology deployment programs, EPA estimates
EPM-35
-------
that the programs have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by up to 1.0 metric ton of carbon
equivalent (3.67 tons of CC^) and delivered nearly $75 in energy bill savings.1 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. Most recently, the United States and EPA has partnered with Australia,
China, India, Japan and South Korea to form the Asia - Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate Change. This partnership will focus on voluntary practical measures
taken by these six countries in the Asia-Pacific region to create new investment opportunities,
build local capacity, and remove barriers to the introduction of clean, more efficient
technologies. This partnership also will help each country meet nationally designed strategies for
improving energy security, reducing pollution, and addressing the long-term challenge of climate
change. EPA is an active participant in this Partnership and the agency's 2008 funding for this
effort is $5 million. The total 2008 funding for the Partnership government-wide is $52 million.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
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 program's efforts.
EPA will continue to implement its government/industry partnership efforts to achieve
greenhouse gas reductions and contribute to the President's goal to reduce greenhouse gas
intensity by 18 percent in 2012. In FY 2008, 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.
• Continue the SmartWay Transport Partnership to increase energy efficiency and lower
emissions of freight transportation by helping to increase 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, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Protecting the
Environment— Together, ENERGY STAR and Other Voluntary Programs, 2003 Annual Report.
EPM-36
-------
• Work to promote renewable fuel blends with the greatest environmental benefit in order
to maximize the potential of these fuels to reduce greenhouse gas intensity and improve
air quality.
• Continue the extension of 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.
• Continue assistance to 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.
• Continue to actively support the government-wide Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development to assist the Asia-Pacific region in developing country-specific strategies to
improve energy security and reduce pollution. EPA will also work with the Asia-Pacific
region to develop and deploy new and emerging technologies and tailor programs, such
as methane capture and 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 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
26.5
FY 2007
Target
29.4
FY 2008
Target
32
Units
MMTCE
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric tons of
carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse
gas reductions in the
industry sector.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
58
FY 2007
Target
62.6
FY 2008
Target
68
Units
MMCTE
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric tons of
carbon equivalent
(mmtce) of greenhouse
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
1.2
FY 2007
Target
1.6
FY 2008
Target
1.5
Units
MMTCE
EPM-37
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
gas reductions in the
transportation sector.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Tons of greenhouse gas
emissions (mmtce)
prevented per societal
dollar in the
transportation sector.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
0.15
FY 2007
Target
No FY07
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY2010
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Tons of greenhouse gas
emissions (mmtce)
prevented per societal
dollar in the industry
sector.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
3.1
FY 2007
Target
No FY07
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY2010
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Tons of greenhouse gas
emissions (mmtce)
prevented per societal
dollar in the building
sector.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
0.7
FY 2007
Target
No FY07
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY2010
Units
Dollars
The program has reevaluated the baseline and targets for the transportation sector. Projected
reductions have been adjusted to reflect the improved accounting. The agency tracks progress
for the efficiency measures listed in the table above every four years. There are no performance
targets for FY 2007 and FY 2008. The next report date for these measures is FY 2010.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,117.0) This reflects a reduction in Federal investment in the ENERGY STAR
program due to public and private industry adoption of these programs
• (-$2,000.0) This reduction eliminates the Best Workplaces for Commuters (BWC)
program; there are several well-established commuter benefits programs in States and
cities. This decrease a phase-out of some of the federal activities that is duplicative of
efforts of States and cities
EPM-38
-------
• (-$600.0) Reduces funding for lower priority activities in the transportation sector.
• (-$83.4) This decrease reflects the net changes to all other Climate Change programs,
such as Industrial Carbon, Climate Leaders, and International Capacity Building.
• (+$895.1) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$4.0) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (-$7.0) This reduction reflects an Agency-wide effort to reduce international travel.
• (-1.6 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. - Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108; Pollution
Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. - Sections 6602, 6603, 6604 and 6605; National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. - Section 102; Global Climate Protection Act,
15 U.S.C. 2901 - Section 1103; Federal Technology Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. - Section 3701a;
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. - Section 104; Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.- Section 8001; Energy Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 16104 et seq.
EPM-39
-------
Program Area: Compliance
EPM-40
-------
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$27,774.3
$481.3
$257.8
$11.0
$28,524.4
197.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$28,890. 7
$839.1
$280.2
$22.2
$30,032.2
212.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,547.0
$688.0
$291.0
$22.0
$30,548.0
208.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$656.3
($151.1)
$10.8
($0.2)
$515.8
-3.7
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 (CAC) program provides
information, training and technical assistance to the regulated community to increase its
understanding of statutory and regulatory environmental requirements, thereby gaining
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 measured and reported using the Integrated Compliance Information
System (ICIS). For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html,
www.epa.gov/clearinghouse, and www.assistancecenters.net.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to provide general and targeted compliance assistance to the
regulated community and integrate assistance into its enforcement and compliance assurance
efforts. In partnership with trade associations and other assistance providers, the Agency will
continue to support the CACs including the new Education Center to be created in FY 2007.
These Centers are a key component of EPA's efforts to help small and medium-sized businesses
and governments understand and comply with Federal environmental requirements. The 15
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
EPM-41
-------
environmental and technical assistance, pollution prevention activities, and resources suited to
the individual sector.
The Federal Facility Enforcement program will continue to provide technical guidance to other
Federal agencies on compliance with applicable Executive Orders and environmental laws. In
FY 2008, EPA will also continue working with other Federal agencies to support the Federal
Facilities Stewardship and Compliance Assistance Center (www.fedcenter.gov). Also in FY
2008, the Agency will also carry out the actions outlined in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by
providing compliance assistance to owners and operators of Underground Storage Tanks (UST).
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 2008, 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.
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.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
Performance Targets:
EPA measures the environmental results of our compliance assistance program by tracking the
percentage of regulated entities that report improvements in environmental management
practices and pollutant reductions resulting from direct EPA compliance assistance. EPA's
Compliance Assistance program achieves pollutant reductions, improves 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 CACs and the clearinghouse.
Through compliance assistance in FY 2006, EPA increased the understanding of regulated
entities, improved environmental management practices (EMPs), and reduced pollution. Eighty-
two percent of Compliance Assistance Center survey respondents reported improved EMPs.
EPM-42
-------
Seventy-four percent of the regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance reported
improved EMPs. Fifty-five percent of regulated entities reported that they reduced, treated, or
eliminated pollution as a result of using CACs and the Clearinghouse.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-2.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
• (-0.5 FTE) The Agency proposes to shift a portion of an FTE from Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit review of new sources and New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) applicability determinations to the enforcement of
Maximum Achievable Control Technology Emission Standards (MACT) standards in the
under the Clean Air Act.
• (-$74.9) This decrease reflects a reduction to contractor support funds to the overall
Compliance Assistance program.
• (-$23.9) This decease will reduce funding to the Agency's Fed Center, a Federal
Facilities Environmental Stewardship and Compliance Assistance Center established to
integrate and share all available information, tools, and expertise in one centralized
location to assist federal facilities in complying with environmental laws, regulations,
permits and Executive Orders.
• (+$755.1) 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; CERCLA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; EPAct.
EPM-43
-------
Compliance Incentives
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$8,338.9
$156.5
$8,495.4
68.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$9,702.2
$142.7
$9,844.9
76.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,786.0
$144.0
$9,930.0
74.6
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$83.8
$1.3
$85.1
-2.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Compliance Incentives program (CIP) encourages regulated entities to monitor and
quickly correct environmental violations, reduce pollution, and make improvements in regulated
entities' environmental management practices. In addition, EPA uses a variety of approaches to
encourage corporate self-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. *
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency's Enforcement program will continue to implement the Audit/Self-Policing (Audit),
Small Business Compliance, and Small Local Governments policies as core elements of the
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program. Since FY 2001, over 5,000 facilities resolved
violations under EPA's Voluntary Disclosure Policies. In FY 2008, 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 FY 2008, the CIP will continue to promote Environmental Management Systems (EMSs).
EMSs provide organizations with an approach to minimizing environmental impacts - regulated
and unregulated - by integrating environmental concerns into business decisions and practices.
EPA will continue to implement the National Environmental Performance Track (NEPT)
program, which is a program that recognizes and motivates top-performing facilities that
For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/programs/index.html.
EPM-44
-------
consistently meet their legal requirements, have implemented EMS, and made tangible
improvements to their environmental performance.
In FY 2008, the Agency will support and encourage states' efforts to adopt the innovative
Environmental Results Program (ERP). ERP consists of four linked tools - compliance
assistance, self-evaluation and certification, inspections, and performance measurement - that
work together to hold facility owners and operators accountable for their environmental
obligations. In Massachusetts, where ERP began, 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.
EPA tracks compliance incentive environmental results in 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
results information available to the public through the Enforcement and Compliance History On-
line (ECHO) internet website during FY 2008. This site provides communities with compliance
status and averages 65,000 queries per month.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review EPA, is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of pollutants
reduced, treated, or
eliminated, as a result
of audit agreements.
FY 2006
Actual
0.05
FY 2006
Target
0.4
FY 2007
Target
0.4
FY 2008
Target
0.4
Units
Million
Pounds
One of the key Civil Enforcement PART program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced
through audit agreements, looks at the overall reduction in pollution as a result of EPA
Compliance Incentive programs2. The Agency is exploring methodologies to strengthen this
measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may entail analysis of
pollutant hazards and population exposure.
2 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
EPM-45
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-2.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
• (-$5.1) This reflects a small decrease to resources used to provide incentives for
regulated entities to comply with the environmental laws.
• (+$88.9) 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-46
-------
Compliance Monitoring
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$86,635.1
$914.4
$87,549.5
614.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$93,018.8
$1,144.1
$94,162.9
632.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$93,428.0
$1,182.0
$94,610.0
629.5
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$409.2
$37.9
$447.1
-2.5
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 by conducting compliance inspections/evaluations, investigations, record
reviews, and information requests, and by responding to tips and complaints from the public.
The program conducts these activities to determine whether conditions that exist may present
imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment and to verify
whether regulated sites are in compliance with environmental laws and regulations. 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. *
In addition, as a part of this program, the Agency reviews and responds to 100 percent of the
notices for movement of hazardous waste across U.S. international borders. The Agency ensures
that these wastes are properly handled in accordance with international agreements and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act regulations.2
EPA conducts compliance monitoring activities, as well as coordinating with and providing
support to state and Tribal partners that conduct compliance inspections/evaluations and
investigations either under state or Tribal authorized programs or EPA statutory authority. EPA's
activities target 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
works with states and tribes to identify where these compliance inspections, evaluations and
investigations will have the greatest impact on achieving environmental results.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2008, Compliance Monitoring program activities will focus on the national program priorities
selected in FY 2006 for the FY 2008-FY 2010 cycle. The program will also emphasize the core
1 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/index.html.
2 For more information about the Import/Export program, refer to:
www.epa.gov/compliance/international/importexport.html.
EPM-47
-------
programs identified in the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's FY 2008-2010 National
Program Guidance as well as on supporting and overseeing authorized state/Tribal programs.3
To ensure the quality of these compliance inspections/evaluations/investigations, EPA identifies
and provides needed training. The training program ensures that the inspectors/investigators are:
1) knowledgeable of environmental requirements and policies, 2) technically proficient in
conducting the compliance inspections/evaluations and taking samples, and 3) skilled at
interviewing potential witnesses and documenting inspections/evaluations results. Compliance
monitoring activities also include the management and use of compliance and enforcement data.
The Agency implemented the modernized Permit Compliance System (PCS) in June 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 the summer of 2006,
thirty direct user states, tribes and territories began using ICIS-NPDES. The Modernized PCS
for the states that provide their data through a batch system will continue in phases beginning
with the planned development of an initial pilot phase for Monitoring Reports (DMR) in FY
2007, with planned implementation in FY 2008. Additional states that batch their DMRs are
planned to be integrated in FY 2008 along with electronic DMRs from facilities. The final phase
will be the release for the remaining states that will batch all of their data to ICIS-NPDES via the
Exchange Network. Final phases of ICIS to include Air Facility System (AFS) Modernization
are scheduled to be implemented by the end of FY 2011.
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 2008. 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 (OECD) which
issued a Council Decision controlling trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste applicable
to all member countries. In 2005, EPA responded to 1,032 notices (representing 402 import
notices and 630 export notices).
In FY 2008, the Agency also will implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by inspecting
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) at sites not inspected since December 31, 1998, covering a
wide range of industries including gas stations, chemical companies, and federal facilities. The
program also will focus on monitoring compliance with gasoline rules.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
! For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/ocfopage/npmguidance/index.htm.
EPM-48
-------
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
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 2006
Actual
890
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
550
Units
million
pounds
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of
concluded enforcement
cases requiring that
pollution be reduced,
treated, or eliminated.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
FY2008
FY 2006
Target
30
FY 2007
Target
30
FY 2008
Target
30
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of
concluded enforcement
cases requiring
implementation of
improved
environmental
management practices.
FY 2006
Actual
82
FY 2006
Target
65
FY 2007
Target
70
FY 2008
Target
70
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. 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 actions4. 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 five years, these pollutant reductions are projections based on the
4 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
EPM-49
-------
settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year. One or two cases can have a
significant effect on the end-of-year results.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-1.3 FTE) This decrease reflects the consolidation of a training function that will be
moved into the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) located in the
enforcement training program.
• (-0.2 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
• (-1.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a redirection to the Civil Enforcement program. The
reduction will not adversely impact the Compliance Monitoring program because the
Agency expects Pennsylvania and Delaware to assume primacy of the NPDES
pretreatment program, reducing the need for compliance FTE.
• (-$300.0) This decrease will reduce funding for the ICIS-NPDES modernization efforts.
This reduction will extend implementation of the capability for the electronic reporting
of CWA NPDES program Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data from the NPDES
regulated facility to ICIS-NPDES. The capability for electronic reporting of CWA
NPDES program DMR data in ICIS-NPDES will be delayed a year.
• (-$232.5) This decrease reduces funding for Compliance Monitoring activities, including
civil investigations.
• (-$46.2) The enforcement program has invested a significant amount of effort to re-host
the Integrated Data Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system on a less costly mainframe
platform, which the program expects will allow reductions in the cost of IDEA
operations.
• (-$39.7) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$5.0) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including
international travel.
• (+$125.0) This increase provides funds for program evaluations of the effectiveness of
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's State Review Framework in all
50 states and five territories.
• (+$907.6) 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-50
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
EPM-51
-------
Civil Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$118,560.9
$1,759.1
$785.4
$121,105.4
936.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$120,777.7
$1,826.3
$883.0
$123,487.0
958.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$126,645.0
$2,065.0
$884.0
$129,594.0
969.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$5,867.3
$238.7
$1.0
$6,107.0
10.6
Program Project Description:
The Civil Enforcement program's overarching goal is to protect human health and the
environment, targeting enforcement actions according to degree of health and environmental
risk. The program works with the Department of Justice to ensure consistent and fair
enforcement of all environmental laws and regulations. The program seeks 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. *
EPA's national enforcement and compliance assurance program is responsible for maximizing
compliance with 12 environmental statutes, 28 distinct programs under those statutes, and dozens
of regulatory requirements under those programs (referred to as the "core program") which apply
in various combinations to a universe of 40 million regulated entities. In addition, as a means for
focusing its mission, the enforcement program identifies, in three-year cycles, specific
environmental risks and noncompliance patterns as national priorities. The enforcement program
coordinates with states, Tribes, and within EPA, as well as soliciting public comment, to
establish these priorities.
To conduct the work necessary for the 28 programs and the national priorities, the enforcement
program utilizes four primary tools: compliance assistance information to prevent violations;
compliance incentives for motivating self-audits by facilities/companies; compliance monitoring
to identify violations; and enforcement actions to correct violations. In addition to EPA's direct
role in utilizing these tools, the enforcement program is responsible for oversight of state
1 For more information visit: www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/index.html:
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/backgnd.htm.
EPM-52
-------
performance and ensuring that the national environmental laws are enforced in a consistent,
equitable manner that protects public health and the environment.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Agency will continue to implement its core Civil Enforcement program, as well
as the national compliance and enforcement priorities established in FY 2007 for 2008-2010.
These priorities will build on the priorities established in FY 2005 for the years 2005-2007,
including Clean Water Act (CWA) "Wet Weather" discharges (water contamination resulting
from sewer overflows, contaminated stormwater runoff, and runoff from concentrated animal
feeding operations); violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA)/New Source Review/Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) and Air Toxics statutes and regulations; Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) violations at Mineral Processing facilities; and
violations of RCRA/SDWA/TSCA/Financial Responsibility requirements.
The program also will focus FY 2008 resources on trans-boundary pollutants, including
international transport of hazardous waste and illegal imports by 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 2008, the Integrated
Compliance Information System (ICIS) will continue to support the civil enforcement program
by ensuring the security and integrity of environmental compliance data, and build the Agency's
capacity to measure civil enforcement outcomes.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
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 2006
Actual
890
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
550
Units
Million
pounds
EPM-53
-------
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 actions2. The Agency is exploring methodologies to
strengthen 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 five 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.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-0.4 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
• (+2.0 FTE) This redirection of 1.0 FTE from Surface Water Protection program and 1.0
FTE from Compliance Monitoring will allow the Regional program to increase the level
of effort required for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) case
development to address wet weather sources and reduce pollutant loads of nutrients,
sediments and bacteria.
• (+3.2 FTE) This redirection from the Superfund Enforcement program is to support case
development that could lead to increased number of enforcement actions, including legal
support to the Emergency Planning & Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA)
program.
• (+3.4 FTE) This increase reflects a realignment of FTE from Wetlands permit reviews,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit review of new sources, and Lead
state program oversight to Wetlands enforcement, enforcement of Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) and Lead standards.
• (+1.0 FTE) This increase reflects a realignment of FTE from compliance monitoring to
civil enforcement to address non compliance in complex industrial and manufacturing
sectors.
2 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
EPM-54
-------
• (-3.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of FTE from civil enforcement to address
the priority of reducing childhood lead poisoning through increased education and
outreach, and increasing the number of individuals certified to engage in lead based paint
activities and the numbers of state and Tribal training and certification programs.
• (+3.9 FTE) This increase reflects the realignment of FTE to be used to track
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) consent decrees to ensure their
implementation.
• (-$157.3) This decrease reflects a modest reduction of funding for case support activities.
• (-$152.0 / -1.0 FTE) This reflects the consolidation of enforcement training resources that
will be transferred to the National Enforcement Training Institute under the enforcement
training program.
• (+$1,753.0) These funds reflect a technical adjustment to centralized Agency support
costs. There are no changes in programmatic or other levels.
• (+$4,423.6) 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-55
-------
Criminal Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$41,595.6
$8,611.7
$50,207.3
270.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
537,793.5
$8,502.2
$46,295.7
270.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,688.0
$9,167.0
$48,855.0
268.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,894.5
$664.8
$2,559.3
-1.9
Program Project Description:
EPA's Criminal Enforcement program investigates and helps prosecute environmental violations
which seriously threaten public health and the environment and which involve intentional,
deliberate or criminal behavior on the part of the violator. The criminal enforcement program
deters violations of environmental laws and regulations by demonstrating that the regulated
community will be held accountable, through jail sentences and criminal fines, for such
violations. The program serves as a warning for potential violators, enhancing aggregate
compliance with laws and regulations.
The Criminal Enforcement program conducts investigations and requests that cases be
prosecuted. Where appropriate, it helps secure plea agreements or sentencing conditions that
will require defendants to undertake projects to improve environmental conditions or develop
environmental management systems to enhance performance. The Agency is involved in all
phases of the investigative process 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.1
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Criminal Enforcement program will continue implementing its strategic
approach by emphasizing investigations and prosecutions of national and Regional enforcement
priorities, as well as other types of "high impact" cases that affect human health, the
environment, and enhance compliance and deterrence. The Criminal Enforcement program will
1 For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/index.html.
EPM-56
-------
continue to enhance its collaboration and coordination with the Civil Enforcement program to
ensure that the enforcement program as a whole responds to violations as effectively as possible.
That is effectuated by co-locating key criminal and civil enforcement managers, establishing a
more effective Regional case screening process to identify the most appropriate civil or criminal
enforcement responses for a particular violation, and by taking criminal enforcement actions
against long-term, or repeat significant non-compliers where appropriate. Coordination will also
be facilitated by focusing on parallel proceedings and other mechanisms allowing us to use the
most appropriate tools to address environmental violations and crimes.
EPA's Criminal Enforcement program is committed to fair and consistent enforcement of
Federal laws and regulations as balanced with the flexibility to respond to region-specific
environmental problems. Criminal enforcement has in place management oversight controls and
national policies to ensure that violators in similar circumstances receive similar treatment under
Federal environmental laws. Consistency is promoted by evaluating all investigations from the
national perspective; overseeing all investigations to ensure compliance with national priorities;
conducting regular "docket reviews" (detailed review of all open investigations in each EPA
Regional office) to ensure consistency with investigatory discretion guidance and enforcement
priorities, and developing, implementing, and periodically reviewing and revising policies and
programs.
In FY 2008, the program will use data from the Criminal Case Reporting System made available
through enhancements to be completed in FY 2007. Information associated with all closed
criminal enforcement cases will be used to systematically compile a profile of criminal cases,
including the extent to which the cases support Agencywide, 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.
In FY 2008, the program will also seek to deter environmental crime by increasing the volume
and quality of leads reported to EPA by the public through the tips and complaints link. The web
link was established on EPA's homepage in FY 2006.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Criminal) PART program received an
"adequate" rating in 2004 with the addition of new outcome measures. The program created a
measure implementation plan to set targets and milestones for performance measures. The
program revised its Case Conclusion Data Sheet, conducted training, and issued the form to
begin collecting new data for Criminal Enforcement PART measures in the field. EPA is
collecting performance information for the pollution reduction performance target in 2006. The
targets for the Improved Environmental Management and the Pollutant Impact measures will be
developed in FY 2007 and FY 2008 respectively. During FY 2006 the program merged data
from EPA's criminal and civil database to provide the information required to develop the target
and baseline for the recidivism measure.
EPM-57
-------
Performance Targets:
In FY 2008, 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, long-term trend analysis of 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 compliance and environmental
stewardship objective. Currently, there are no performance measures specific to this program
project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$94.2) This reflects a decrease in the purchase of equipment for the criminal
enforcement computer forensics program.
• (-$25.9 / -1.5 FTE) This reflects the consolidation of enforcement training resources that
will be transferred to the National Enforcement Training Institute under the enforcement
training program.
• (+$2,014.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction
Act (RLBPHRA); FIFRA; Ocean Dumping Act (i.e., MPRSA); Pollution Prosecution Act; Title
18 General Federal Crimes (e.g., false statements, conspiracy); Powers of Environmental
Protection Agency (18 U.S.C. 3063).
EPM-58
-------
Enforcement Training
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$2,655.2
$568.9
$3,224.1
15.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,503.7
$621.9
$3,125.6
16.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,145.0
$840.0
$3,985.0
20.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$641.3
$218.1
$859.4
4.0
Program Project Description:
The Pollution Prosecution Act is the statutory mandate for the Agency's Enforcement Training
program that provides environmental enforcement and compliance 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 and compliance goals. Courses are provided to lawyers,
inspectors, civil and criminal investigators, and technical experts at all levels of government.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, NETI will develop and deliver training to address important gaps in enforcement
and compliance assurance knowledge and skills identified in needs assessments and national
strategic plans. The NETI advisory service will assist the Agency's enforcement experts to
develop course agendas and determine the most effective methods to deliver quality training to
the nation's enforcement professionals. The program funds training for states and Tribes through
cooperative agreements with state/Tribal entities. NETI operates training facilities in
Washington, D.C. and in Lakewood, CO.
NETI also maintains a training center on the Internet, "NETI Online," which offers targeted
technical training courses and the capability to track individual training plans. "NETI Online's"
clearinghouse of training information includes links to lists of course offerings, as well as tools
for Agency training providers to assist with developing, managing, and evaluating the program's
training. *
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
1 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html
EPM-59
-------
Compliance Assurance Program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
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 2006
Actual
890
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
550
Units
Million
pounds
One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions2. The Agency is exploring methodologies to
strengthen 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 five years, these pollutant reductions are projections based on the
settlement agreements entered during each fiscal year. One or two cases can have a significant
effect on the end-of-year results.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$178.1 / +3.8 FTE) This increase reflects the consolidation of a training function that
is being moved from the Civil Enforcement, Compliance Monitoring, and Criminal
Enforcement programs and into the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI)
located in the Enforcement Training program.
• (-1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
• (-$20.2) This reduction reduces funding to the National Enforcement Training Institute
(NETI).
• (+$483.4) 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.
2 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
EPM-60
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$4,691.5
$638.6
$5,330.1
19.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,859.0
$756.7
$4,615.7
17.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,822.0
$757.0
$4,579.0
16.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($37.0)
$0.3
($36.7)
-1.0
Program Project Description:
The Environmental Justice (EJ) program addresses environmental and/or human health concerns
in all communities, including minority and/or low-income communities. Research has shown
that the minority segments and low-income segments of the population have been, or could be,
disproportionately exposed to environmental harm and risks. Thus, EPA focuses attention on
minority communities and low-income communities to ensure that EPA actions do not adversely
affect these or any other communities that face critical environmental or public health issues.
The EJ program also provides education, outreach, and data to communities and facilitates the
integration of environmental justice considerations into Agency programs, policies, and
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. *
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will enhance and maintain the Online Environmental Justice Geographical
Information System Assessment Tool (EJGAT) to help individuals, government, industry, and
organizations better identify and address environmental 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.
The Program will also work with other EPA offices to develop customized online tools that help
the Agency integrate environmental justice considerations into its day-to-day work in an efficient
and effective manner. The enforcement program has developed a tool to help ensure that
enforcement and compliance activities focus on communities that need the most attention. The
Environmental Justice Smart Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) represents a
methodology that uses a set of indicators to help the enforcement program identify areas that
may have significant environmental and/or public health issues.
1 For more information on the Environmental Justice program, please refer to:
www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaliustice/index.html.
EPM-61
-------
EJSEAT enhances EPA's ability to protect burdened communities, including minority
communities and low-income communities, from adverse human health and environmental
effects, consistent with existing environmental and civil rights laws, and their implementing
regulations, as well as Executive Order 12898 {Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations., issued February 11, 1994). The
enforcement program made environmental justice an element of each of its FY2005-2007
national priorities. This assessment tool was field-tested as part of an extensive agency review
process during FY 2007 and is expected to be fully operational in FY 2008. Under EJSEAT
EPA will identify, in a more consistent and analytically rigorous manner, potential
disproportionately high and adversely affected areas that are referred to as "Areas with Potential
Environmental Justice Concerns," to assist the enforcement program make fair and efficient
resource deployment decisions, and will consistently analyze, based on demographic (i.e., race
and income) information, how its enforcement actions have affected areas with minority and/or
low-income populations.
In FY 2008, EPA will maintain the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving (CPS)
Cooperative Agreement Program. This grant program provides financial assistance to affected
local community-based organizations that wish to engage in constructive and collaborative
problem-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 2008, EPA's EJ program will continue to lead an Agency-wide effort to integrate more
fully environmental justice considerations into EPA's programs and operations, including its
five-year strategic planning and annual budget processes. The Agency's 2006-2011 Strategic
Plan will reflect a strategic target for identifying the cumulative number of communities with
potential environmental justice concerns that achieve significant measurable environmental or
public health improvement through collaborative problem-solving strategies to applicable
portions of the Headquarters program and Regional offices' environmental justice activities.
In FY 2008, the EJ program will continue to use alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where
appropriate, as an effective means of addressing disputes by training local community
organizations on its use. Through the use of ADR, the EJ program expects to reduce time and
resources accompanying litigation and anticipates that decisions reached will be more efficient
and favorable for all parties involved.
The EJ program will also continue to assist program offices and other environmental
organizations and government agencies in the delivery of customized training to increase the
capacity of their personnel to effectively address issues of environmental justice. This training
includes both in-person presentations and development of online training.
EPM-62
-------
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
Performance Targets:
EPA will identify the cumulative number of communities with potential environmental justice
concerns that achieve significant measurable environmental and/or public health improvements
through collaborative problem-solving strategies.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-1.0 FTE) This decrease reflects efficiencies achieved in FY 2005 from reducing the
number of National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC)
subcommittees. Less headquarters coordination and support is required due to a fewer
number of subcommittees.
• (-$32.1) This decrease reflects a small reduction in funding for the Agency's
environmental justice activities.
• (-$4.9) 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:
Executive Order 12898; RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; FIFRA; NEPA;
Pollution Provention Act.
EPM-63
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$12,890.2
$12,890.2
106.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$13,787.5
$13,787.5
104.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$14,366.0
$14,366.0
104.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$578.5
$578.5
0.0
Program Project Description:
As required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act, the NEPA Implementation program reviews Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
detailing the anticipated environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions, including
options for avoiding or mitigating them, and makes the comments available to the public. The
program manages the Agency's official filing activity for all Federal EISs, 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, promote better integration of pollution prevention and
ecological risk assessment elements into their programs, and provide technical assistance in
developing projects and associated environmental impacts that prevent adverse environmental
impacts. The Agency targets high impact Federal program areas, such as energy/transportation-
related projects and water resources 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. *
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will work with other Federal agencies to streamline and improve their NEPA
processes. Work will focus on a number of key areas such as approval of on-shore and off-shore
liquid natural gas facilities, coal bed methane development and other energy-related projects,
nuclear power/hydro-power plant licensing/re-licensing, highway and airport expansion, military
base realignment/redevelopment, flood control and port development, and management of
national forests and public lands.
1 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa.
EPM-64
-------
The NEPA Implementation program also guides EPA's own compliance with NEPA, other
applicable statutes and executive orders, and related Environmental Justice requirements.
Corresponding efforts include EPA-issued new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits in cases where a state or Tribe has not assumed responsibility for the
NPDES program, off-shore oil and gas projects, Clean Water Act wastewater treatment plant
grants, and special appropriation grants for wastewater, water supply and solid waste collection
facilities. In FY 2008, 90% of EPA projects subject to NEPA environmental assessment (EA) or
EIS 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.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$38.9) This decrease will reduce contractor support for EIS and EA work.
• (+$617.4) 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-65
-------
Program Area: Geographic Programs
EPM-66
-------
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$22,292.9
$22,292.9
24.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$26,397. 7
$26,397.7
21.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$28,768.0
$28,768.0
21.7
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$2,370.3
$2,370.3
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Chesapeake Bay work is based on a collaborative regional partnership formed to direct
and conduct restoration of the Bay and its tidal tributaries. Partners include Maryland; Virginia;
Pennsylvania; Delaware; New York; West Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake
Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative body; EPA, which represents the Federal government;
and participating citizen advisory groups. Chesapeake 2000, a comprehensive and far-reaching
agreement, guides restoration and protection efforts through 2010, and focuses on improving
water quality. Through this agreement, 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."
Two key measures of success in achieving improved Bay water quality to remove impairments in
the Bay and its tidal tributaries are restoring submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and attaining
the dissolved oxygen (DO) standards in the Bay's tidal waters. The Chesapeake Bay Program's
(CBP's) long-term goal for SAV restoration is 185,000 acres and long-term goal for DO
restoration is 100 percent attainment of DO standards in all tidal waters of the Bay. To achieve
these long-term goals, Bay watershed models estimate that the Bay Program partners must
reduce long-term annual nitrogen loadings by 162.4 million pounds, long-term annual
phosphorus loadings by 14.36 million pounds, and long-term annual sediment loadings by 1.69
million tons from 1985 levels.
To achieve water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay as soon as possible, the Bay Program
partners must commit to increasing the current pace of restoration by fully implementing
coordinated pollution reduction strategies. EPA is committed to work with our Bay Program
partners to identify opportunities to reduce nutrient and sediment loads and find new economies
and innovations to dramatically accelerate progress and increase the cost effectiveness of
reduction strategies. The majority of the nutrient and sediment pollution entering the Bay comes
from non-point sources, primarily agricultural runoff. Therefore, implementing best agricultural
management practices (BMPs) to reduce nutrients and sediment is crucial to achieving
Chesapeake Bay goals. Agricultural BMPs are generally the most cost effective strategy for
reducing nutrients and sediment. Another key strategy to reduce non-point nitrogen, phosphorus,
EPM-67
-------
and sediment loadings is restoring and protecting riparian forests that prevent sediment and
nutrient pollution from entering waterways from the land. Largely through advanced wastewater
treatment, the partners have achieved 82% of the point-source phosphorous reduction goal and
65% of the point-source nitrogen reduction goal. We will continue to work with other Federal
agencies and states on related initiatives to protect and restore critical Bay watershed habitat and
improve fisheries management.
For more information see http://www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The CBP has shown how Federal agencies and states can work together collaboratively. The
greatest success in the last five years has been the water quality initiative, which has resulted in:
• New water quality standards for the Bay and its tidal tributaries that protect living
resources and are both more attainable and more valid scientifically, incorporating
innovative features such as habitat zoning and adoption of area-specific submerged
aquatic vegetation acreage targets;
• Adoption of nutrient and sediment allocations for all parts of the watershed, to meet the
new standards, which reflect a consensus of all six basin states, the District of Columbia,
and EPA;
• Tributary-specific pollution reduction and habitat restoration plans which spell out the
treatment technologies, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and restoration goals for
riparian forest buffers and wetlands which must be employed to achieve the allocations;
and
• A common National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
approach for all significant wastewater treatment facilities that unites both upstream and
downstream states in the enforcement of the new water quality standards and allocations,
including implementation of watershed permitting and nutrient trading.
To help accelerate restoration of the Bay, in FY 2008, EPA will provide additional funding to
specifically address cost-effective non-point source nutrient reduction through competitive
grants. With analytical help from EPA, the CBP partners will continue to emphasize
implementation of the most cost-effective BMPs. Priorities for restoration efforts were
established by CBP leaders in 2005. EPA and its partners are also supporting watershed projects
that test the effectiveness of key nonpoint source BMPs and spur innovations such as better
technology and market incentives. In order to accelerate the pace of water quality and aquatic
habitat restoration, EPA and Bay area states are taking a number of steps to make the most cost-
effective use of available regulatory, incentive and partnership tools, including the following key
actions for FY 2008:
• Fully implement base clean water programs in the Bay.
• Support implementation of watershed permitting and nutrient trading programs.
EPM-68
-------
Accelerate Bay cleanup by focusing on the most cost-effective nutrient-sediment control
and key habitat restoration strategies.
Enhance use of monitoring, modeling and demonstration projects to target and assess the
effectiveness of restoration actions.
• Strengthen accountability for implementation of restoration measures.
• Use the CBP Federal partnership for cooperative conservation to improve access to
available financial and technical assistance programs, and link Federal programs to
CBP's strategic priorities.
The Chesapeake Bay Program completed a PART review in 2006 and achieved a moderately
effective rating. New performance measures developed for the FY 2006 PART assessments are
included in the FY 2008 President's Budget. Follow-up actions in the improvement plan include
investigating potential methods to characterize the uncertainty of the watershed and water quality
models, developing a comprehensive implementation strategy, and promoting and tracking the
most cost effective restoration activities to maximize water quality improvements
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of goal
achieved for
implementation of
nitrogen reduction
practices (expressed as
progress meeting the
nitrogen reduction goal
of 162.5 million
pounds).
FY 2006
Actual
44
FY 2006
Target
44
FY 2007
Target
47
FY 2008
Target
50
Units
Percent Goal
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of goal
achieved for
implementation of
phosphorus reduction
practices (expressed as
progress meeting the
phosphorus reduction
goal of 14.36 million
pounds).
FY 2006
Actual
61
FY 2006
Target
61
FY 2007
Target
64
FY 2008
Target
66
Units
Percent Goal
EPM-69
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of goal
achieved for
implementation of
sediment reduction
practices (expressed as
progress meeting the
sediment reduction
goal of 1.69 million
pounds).
FY 2006
Actual
57
FY 2006
Target
57
FY 2007
Target
61
FY 2008
Target
64
Units
Percent Goal
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of point source
nitrogen reduction goal
of 49.9 million pounds
achieved.
FY 2006
Actual
65
FY 2006
Target
65
FY 2007
Target
70
FY 2008
Target
74
Units
Percent Goal
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of point source
phosphorus reduction
goal of 6. 16 million
pounds achieved.
FY 2006
Actual
82
FY 2006
Target
82
FY 2007
Target
84
FY 2008
Target
85
Units
Percent Goal
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of forest buffer
planting goal of 10,000
miles achieved.
FY 2006
Actual
46
FY 2006
Target
46
FY 2007
Target
53
FY 2008
Target
60
Units
Percent Goal
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Total nitrogen
reduction practices
implementation
achieved as a result of
agricultural best
management practices
implementation per
million dollars to
implement agricultural
BMPs.
FY 2006
Actual
45,928
FY 2006
Target
49,113
FY 2007
Target
47,031
FY 2008
Target
48,134
Units
Pounds per
million $
EPM-70
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$6,000.0) This decrease reflects end of one-year funding for the Corsica River project.
• (+$8,000.0) This increase is for competitive grants for innovative, cost-effective non-
point source watershed projects which reduce nutrient and\or sediment discharges to the
Bay. The Federal cost share will not exceed 50%.
• (+$368.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1.5) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
EPM-71
-------
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$19,251.9
$19,251.9
52.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$20,577.1
$20,577.1
65.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$21,757.0
$21,757.0
58.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,179.9
$1,179.9
-7.0
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 bi-national Great Lakes Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network.
• Performs toxic reduction activities by implementing the Great Lakes Bi-national Toxics
Strategy for reduced loadings of targeted pollutants in accordance with the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)1.
• 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.
• Addresses invasive species, though collaboration with partners, by emphasizing
prevention of additional introductions.
(See http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/ for more information.)
1 U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. April 1997. The Great Lakes Bi-national Toxics Strategy. Washington, DC.
(http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/p2/bns.html'l
EPM-72
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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. 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 give priority to working with states and local communities to clean-up and de-list 8
Areas of Concern (AOCs) by calendar year (CY) 2010 and most AOCs by CY 2025. An AOC is
a geographic area that fails to meet the objectives of the GLWQA where such failure has caused
or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or of the area's ability to support aquatic life. In
general, these are bays, harbors, and river mouths with damaged fish and wildlife populations,
contaminated bottom sediments, and past or continuing loadings of toxic and bacterial pollutants.
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, lake-wide 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,
Superior, and Huron in CY 2005 through CY 2007, EPA will focus on similar cooperative
monitoring efforts with Canada on Lake Ontario in CY 2008. Planned scientific peer reviews in
CY 2007 may result in revisions of the Open Lake Trend Monitoring Program's Data Quality
Objective (DQO) to reflect present day contaminant trends and the creation of a DQO for the
Sport Fish Monitoring Program.
EPM-73
-------
?
Q.
Q.
U)
CD
O
Q.
Total PCBs in Great Lakes Top Predator Fish, Odd
Year Sites
Lake Trout (Walleye in Lake Erie)
1991 -2003
A cnnn
A nnnn
o cnnn
o nnnn
2 5000
2 0000
1 <>nnn
1 nnnn
n <>nnn
n nnnn
Superior
A Michigan
• Huron
• - - -Erie
• Ontario
m
I ~_ *\
\ • A * A A
_ ^ -% \- ^^^^ m ^ ^
"" - * , __ .^t^*= *— ^^^
" " * *
^ # # ^ ^ J ^ J J / ^ /- /
Year
PCBs in Great Lakes Top Predator Fish
EPA will continue to monitor the annual occurrence of high rates of oxygen depletion, which
lead to low dissolved-oxygen levels in the Lake Erie "dead zone." Despite U.S. and Canadian
success in achieving total phosphorus load reductions, phosphorus in the central basin of Lake
Erie has increased since the early 1990's to levels substantially in excess of the GLWQA
Objective of 10ug-P/l3. During CYs 2006 and 2007, EPA is working with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) to investigate the depleted oxygen conditions, to update
models of Lake Erie's response to nutrients, and to fill in information gaps through modeling
nutrient dynamics processes. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, EPA will support additional modeling
and will begin identification of management implications for Lake Erie restoration.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to 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 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
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.pdfGreat
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
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 National Program Office Annual Monitoring Program - Changes in Phosphorus levels and direction
over time, Great Lakes Environmental Database, (http://www.epa.gov/grtiakes/glindicators/index.html)
EPM-74
-------
healthy lake bottom).
fisheries.
Their decline may portend adverse affects on Great Lakes fish and
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 2006
Actual
21.10
FY 2006
Target
21
FY 2007
Target
21
FY 2008
Target
21
Units
Scale
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Average concentrations
of PCBs in whole lake
trout and walleye
samples will decline.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
5
FY 2007
Target
5
FY 2008
Target
5
Units
Percent
Annual
Decrease
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Average concentrations
of toxic chemicals in
the air in the Great
Lakes basin will
decline
FY 2006
Actual
8
FY 2006
Target
7
FY 2007
Target
7
FY 2008
Target
7
Units
Percent
Annual
Decrease
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Restore and delist
Areas of Concern
(AOCs) within the
Great Lakes basin
FY 2006
Actual
1
FY 2006
Target
2
FY 2007
Target
4
FY 2008
Target
2
Units
AOC
Following long-term trends, average concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye
samples are expected to continue to decline by 5 percent annually, reflecting modest continual
improvement in Great Lakes health. Also, 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 percent annually.
Each of these performance measures reflects the results of multiple EPA base programs and
other activities of organizations working to improve Great Lakes environmental conditions. The
score to be reported in FY 2008 for overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is expected to
remain constant or improve slightly from the score reported in FY 2007. Ecosystem
EPM-75
-------
improvement on a scale as large as the Great Lakes is likely to be reflected in time periods
greater than a year.
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, the Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) has tracked the 31 AOCs that are within the U.S. or shared
with Canada. On June 19, 2006, the Oswego River, New York's AOC, became the first U.S.
AOC to be officially removed from the list of U.S. AOCs. Guided by the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration goals, EPA and the Great Lakes states have renewed efforts to de-list (clean up)
the U.S. AOCs.
This program has not been reviewed under the PART process.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-7.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction brings the
workforce in better alignment with the requested funding level of the Great Lakes
Legacy Act cleanup program, which is managed through this program. These reductions
will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out
its programs.
• (+$1,447.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$268.6) This reduction reflects a redirection of workforce support to the Surface Water
Protection program.
• (-$0.6) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (+$1.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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 Bi-national Toxics Strategy.
EPM-76
-------
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$3,715.9
$3,715.9
12.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$4,310.7
$4,310.7
14.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,457.0
$4,457.0
14.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$146.3
$146.3
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's efforts in the Gulf of Mexico directly support a collaborative, multi-organizational Gulf
states-led partnership comprised of regional businesses and industries, agriculture, state and local
governments, citizens, environmental and fishery interests, and numerous Federal departments
and agencies. The Gulf of Mexico Program (http://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 Governors' Action Plan.
EPA supports this partnership's efforts to effectively address the complex and pressing issues
facing the Gulf of Mexico.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Gulf of Mexico's environmental 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 2008 target to restore 64 percent 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 18,200 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 bi-national early-warning system;
EPM-77
-------
Assisting the Gulf states in reducing contamination of seafood and local beaches through
efforts to establish effective microbial source tracking methods and technologies;
Assisting in consumer awareness/educational efforts to reduce the rate of shellfish-borne
Vibrio vulnificus illnesses caused by consumption of commercially-harvested raw or
undercooked oysters;
Supporting efforts to reduce nutrient loadings to watersheds and reduce the size of the
hypoxic zone; and
Fostering regional stewardship through Gulf Guardian Awards and outreach projects.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Improve overall health
of coastal waters of the
Gulf of Mexico on the
"good/fair/poor" scale
of the National Coastal
Condition Report.
FY 2006
Actual
2.40
FY 2006
Target
2.4
FY 2007
Target
2.4
FY 2008
Target
2.5
Units
Scale
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 2006
Actual
14,944
FY 2006
Target
14,128
FY 2007
Target
14,128
FY 2008
Target
13,500
Units
Sqkm
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of water
and habitat quality
restored to meet water
quality standards in
impaired segments in
13 priority coastal
areas.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
64
Units
Percent
impair
segmts
EPM-78
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Acres of important
coastal and marine
habitats restored,
enhanced or protected.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
18,200
Units
Acres
A major indication of improvement in the overall health of the entire Gulf of Mexico is the
National Coastal Condition Report Index. The score for the Gulf of Mexico in the 2001 Report
was 1.9 on a 5 point system where 1 is poor and 5 is good. The score reported in the 2005
Report improved to 2.4 for the Gulf of Mexico.
This score does not include the impact of the hypoxic zone (low oxygen) in offshore Gulf Coast
waters. The National Coastal Condition score includes indicators used to calculate regional,
ecosystem-wide characterizations that include all primary estuaries. The hypoxic zone is a site
specific, not regional indicator of dissolved oxygen. The coast-wide extent of the hypoxic zone
mapped in 2006 was 17,280 square kilometers (6,662 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 13,000 KM2 (5,000 square miles). The target by 2015 is to
reduce the zone to less than 5,000 KM2.
The Mississippi River Basin, which drains more than 41 percent of the continental U.S., accounts
for the bulk of the nonpoint nutrient inputs to the Gulf of Mexico. Reduction in the amount of
nutrients from this source is a critical management objective that requires implementation
coordination among the many state and Federal partners in the Mississippi River Basin.
This program has not been reviewed under the PART process.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$146.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$0.5) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (-$0.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
EPM-79
-------
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$3,959.0
$3,959.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$933. 8
$933.8
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$934.0
$934.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.2
$0.2
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) that was signed into law on November 5, 1990.
A plan, "Opportunities for Action," was developed to achieve the goal of the Act, to bring
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 support 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. (See http://www.epa.gov/NE/eco/lakechamplain/index.html
http://www.lcbp.org, and http://nh.water.usgs.gov/champlain feds/ for more information.)
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA works with state and local partners to protect and improve Lake Champlain Basin's water
quality, fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources. Activities include:
• Revising the Lake Champlain Basin Management Plan to incorporate recent
developments and ongoing work in the Basin;
• Monitoring population of alewives, a recent invasive species affecting Lake Champlain;
• Increasing focus on establishing and tracking ecological status and progress in Lake
Champlain;
• Establishing a farmer-to-farmer outreach program designed to improve water quality in
Missisquoi Bay of Lake Champlain by reducing agriculturally-based pollutants. The
focus will be on improved crop management, implementing best management programs,
soil testing, assistance in performing self-assessments, and other methods;
• Revamping the long-term limnological monitoring program for Lake Champlain;
EPM-80
-------
• Addressing high levels of phosphorous, 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; and
• Continuing work to understand the high seasonal concentrations of toxic cyanobacteria,
particularly microcystin, in the northern reaches of Lake Champlain.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems objective.
Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program/project.
This program has not been reviewed under the PART process.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+0.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes
and Lake Champlain Act; Clean Water Act; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; U.S.-
Canada Agreements; and Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).
EPM-81
-------
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$946.0
$946.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$466.9
$466.9
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$467.0
$467.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.1
$0.1
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA supports the protection and restoration of Long Island Sound by assisting the states in
implementing the Sound's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP),
approved in September 1994 under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act as amended.
The CCMP was developed under the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) bi-state Management
Conference. The LISS is sponsored by EPA and the states of Connecticut and New York, and
involves regional water pollution control agencies, scientific researchers, user groups,
environmental organizations, industry, and other interested organizations and individuals. The
LISS CCMP identified six critical environmental problem areas that require sustained
coordinated action to address: the effects of hypoxia on the ecosystem, including living marine
resources; the impacts of toxic contamination in the food web and living resources; pathogen
pollution; floatable debris deposition; the impacts of habitat degradation and loss on the health of
living resources; and the effects of land use and development on the Sound. The CCMP also
identifies public education, information, and participation as priority action items in protecting
and restoring the Sound.
The states of New York and Connecticut are active in reducing nitrogen through their Trading
programs. In 2005, 51 facilities in Connecticut purchased approximately $2.5 million of credits;
sold by 28 facilities. Capital savings in construction costs avoided from this Nitrogen Credit
Exchange Program is estimated to be more than $200 million.
(See http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net and http://www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis for further
information.)
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to oversee implementation of the LISS CCMP in 2008 by coordinating the
cleanup and restoration actions of the LISS Management Conference as authorized under
Sections 119 and 320 of the Clean Water Act as amended. EPA's efforts will focus in the
following six primary areas: nitrogen reduction; watershed protection; water quality monitoring;
EPM-82
-------
habitat restoration, protection and stewardship; scientific research; and public information and
education.
• Nitrogen reduction from point and nonpoint sources of pollution is expected to reduce the
area of the Sound that is seasonally impaired as habitat for fish and shellfish because of
low dissolved oxygen levels, a condition called hypoxia. In FY 2008, a key new
performance measure was added to track progress against nitrogen reduction goals.
• Monitoring of water quality, including environmental indicators such as dissolved
oxygen levels, temperature, salinity, and water clarity, and biological indicators such as
chlorophyll a, will assess environmental conditions that may contribute to impaired water
quality.
• Habitat restoration and protection will improve the productivity of tidal wetlands, inter-
tidal zones, and other key habitats that have been adversely affected by unplanned
development, overuse, or land use related pollution effects.
• Watershed protection and nonpoint source pollution controls will help reduce the effects
of runoff pollution on rivers and streams discharging to the Sound, and restoration and
protection efforts will increase streamside buffer zones as natural filters of pollutants and
runoff.
• Stewardship of ecologically and biologically significant areas, and identification and
management of recreationally important areas, will assist in developing compatible
public access and uses of Sound resources.
• Results from focused scientific research into the causes and effects of pollution on the
Sound's living marine resources, ecosystems, water quality and human uses will assist
managers and public decision-makers to develop policies and strategies to address
environmental, social, and human health impacts.
• Targeted environmental education and public information will inform the public and
decision-makers on progress in restoring and protecting the Sound and the status of
environmental and other indicators of ecosystem health.
This program was included in OMB's PART assessment, Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary
Protection, completed in 2005 and was rated "adequate".
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce point source
nitrogen discharges to
LIS.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
8303
Units
Lbs/day
EPM-83
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Acres of coastal
habitat, including tidal
wetlands, dunes,
riparian buffers, and
freshwater wetlands
restored or protected.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
50
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Additional miles of
river and stream
corridor reopened to
anadramous fish
passage through
removal of dams and
barriers or installation
of by -pass structures
such as fishways.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
8.3
Units
Miles
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$0.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
Long Island Sound Restoration Act, P.L. 106-457 as amended by P.L. 109-137; 33 U.S.C. 1269.
EPM-84
-------
Geographic Program: Other
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities; Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$8,181.6
$8,181.6
4.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$9,050.0
$9,050.0
12.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$8,575.0
$8,575.0
12.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($475.0)
($475.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA targets efforts to protect and restore various communities and ecosystems impacted by
environmental problems. Under this program, the Agency works with communities to develop
and implement community-based approaches to mitigate diffuse sources of pollution and
cumulative risk for four geographic programs: South Florida; Northwest Forest; Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Restoration; Puget Sound; 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 leads 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, 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, the
Brownfields Program, and other programs.
The Northwest (NW) Forest Program implements a collaborative planning and management
framework that supports interagency management agreement and joint funding for watershed
assessment, planning, protection, and restoration efforts. The NW aquatic and watershed
monitoring effort contributes to aquatic and riparian monitoring under the NW Forest Plan and
the Pacific NW Aquatic Monitoring Partnership. These two efforts contribute to the
achievement of national examples of watershed scale aquatic monitoring and collaborative
monitoring across Federal, Tribal, state, and private lands.
The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program strives to restore the ecological health of the
Basin by developing and funding restoration projects. It also supports related scientific and
public education projects.
The Puget Sound program is a critical ecosystem to be restored and protected. EPA efforts are
focused on the Basin's highest priority environmental problems: air and water quality.
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. Much of the risk reduction comes
through the application of over 25 EPA voluntary programs from across the Agency.
Communities can tap a range of efforts designed to address community concerns such as Diesel
Retrofits, Brownfields, National Estuary Program, Design for Environment, Environmental
Justice Revitalization Projects, Tools for Schools, and Regional Geographic Initiatives,
improving their effectiveness by working to integrate them to better meet the needs of
communities.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
South Florida - In conducting special initiatives and planning activities, the South Florida
Program will:
• Assist with coordinating and facilitating the ongoing implementation of the Water
Quality Protection Program for the FKNMS, including management of long-term status
and trends monitoring projects (water quality, coral reef, and seagrass) and the associated
data management program.
• Conduct studies to determine cause and effect relationships among pollutants and
biological resources, implement wastewater and storm water master plans, and provide
public education and outreach activities.
• 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;
Integrated Mercury Study; and
- REMAP Monitoring Program (assess ecosystem characteristics and conditions
throughout the Everglades ecosystem).
• Implement the Wetlands Conservation, Permitting, and Mitigation Strategy.
• Support collaborative efforts through interagency workgroups/committees/task forces,
including South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force Working Group, Florida Bay
Program Management Committee, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Review Study Team
for the Central and Southern Florida Project, Central and South Florida Restudy Science
Coordination Team, and South Florida Urban Initiative.
• Assist with development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for South Florida.
New strategic targets are proposed for the South Florida Program in the 2006-2011 Strategic
Plan. The new strategic targets address important environmental markers such as stony coral
EPM-86
-------
cover, health and functionality of seagrass beds, and water quality in the FKNMS and the
general water quality in the Everglades ecosystem.
Northwest Forest - Federal, state, and Tribal partners implement shared responsibilities for the
Aquatic Monitoring Strategy, including broad scale monitoring indicators, protocols, and a
design framework. In addition, the NW Forest Program will:
• Implement an intensive effectiveness monitoring network in 3 to 5 basins in Oregon and
Washington.
• Develop shared data standards and data sharing network/tools (state, Tribal, and Federal).
• Complete watershed condition/trend monitoring in 25 to 30 watersheds in California,
Oregon, and Washington.
Lake Pontchartrain - The program will work to restore the ecological health of the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin by:
• Completing plans and studies as identified in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program
Comprehensive Management Plan (LPBCMP) which supports the following goals:
- Planning and design of consolidated wastewater treatment systems, which support the
Agency's Sustainable Infrastructure goal;
Repair and replacement studies to improve existing wastewater systems; and
Design of storm water management systems.
• Conducting outreach and public education projects that address the goals of the
LPBCMP, such as:
- Improving the management of animal waste lagoons by educating and assisting the
agricultural community on lagoon maintenance techniques; and
Protecting and restoring critical habitats and encouraging sustainable growth by
providing information and guidance on habitat protection and green development
techniques.
Puget Sound Basin - In FY 2008, EPA will provide an additional $1 million to improve water
quality, air quality, and minimize the adverse impacts of rapid development in the Puget Sound
Basin the program will:
• Improve water quality and enable lifting of harvest restrictions in shellfish beds.
• Remediate contaminated sediments.
• Restore seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands.
CARE
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 uses two sets of cooperative agreements.
In the smaller Level I agreements, the community, working with EPA, creates a collaborative
EPM-87
-------
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.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Mean percent stony
coral cover in the
Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary
(FKNMS) and in the
coastal waters of Bade,
Broward, and Palm
Beach Counties,
Florida, working with
all stakeholders.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
6.7/5.9
Units
Mean % area
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Maintain the overall
water quality of the
near shore and coastal
waters of the FKNMS.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Maintain
Units
Water quality
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Total phosphorous in
Everglades surface
waters.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Maintain
Units
Parts per B
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
% of population in
each of U.S. Pacific
Island Territories
served by CWS will
receive drinking water
that meets all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards throughout
the year.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
72
Units
Percent
population
EPM-88
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
The sewage treatment
plants in the U.S.
Pacific Island
Territories will comply
with permit limits for
biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and
total suspended solids
(TSS).
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
67
Units
Percent Time
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Beaches in each of the
U.S. Pacific Island
Territories monitored
under the Beach Safety
Program will be open
and safe for swimming
during the beach
season.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
70
Units
Percent Days
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Acres of wetland
habitat and acres of
upland habitat
protected, enhanced, or
restored in the
Columbia River Basin.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
3000
Units
Acres
This program has not been reviewed under the PART process.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$480.2) This reduction reflects elimination of targeted monitoring activities for South
Florida. Future monitoring will be part of the national monitoring program.
• (+$1,000.0) This increase is for Puget Sound restoration activities linked to nonpoint
souces or habitat restoration work. Federal cost share for projects can not exceed 50%.
• (-$1,000.0) This reduction to the CARE program will fund higher priority activities and
decrease the number of grants awarded from approximately 20 to approximately 13. The
EPM-89
-------
decrease will primarily focus on the Level I grants to ensure that funds are available for
the existing CARE communities eligible for the larger Level II grants.
• (+$5.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$0.7) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
South Florida: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990; National
Marine Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992; CWA; Water Resources Development
Act of 1996, RCRA; and CERCLA.
Northwest Forest: CWA; Economy Act of 1932; and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act.
Lake Pontchartrain: CWA.
CARE: CAA, CWA, SWDA, and TSCA.
EPM-90
-------
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities; Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
57,777.7
$7,717.1
16.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
59,737.3
$9,137.3
15.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,553.0
$9,553.0
17.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$415.7
$415.7
2.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's ten Regional Offices use Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) funds to support
innovative, geographically-based projects. These funds are available to EPA Regional Offices to
support priority local and regional environmental projects, which may include protecting
children's health, restoring watersheds, providing for clean air, preventing pollution and
fostering environmental stewardship. RGI provides an essential tool to facilitate holistic,
innovative resolutions to complex environmental problems. RGI is one of EPA's premiere
innovation resources — spurring local projects that have often become national models (such as
school bus diesel retrofits; watershed planning; and developing agricultural pollution prevention
performance standards for pest management). This initiative has been very cost-effective: every
RGI dollar is matched by more than 10 non-Federal dollars from states, localities, non-profit
organizations, and the private sector.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
RGI provides modest funding to support eight to 10 environmental and public health projects per
Regional Office. These initiatives encourage communities to invest in projects that will yield
improved environmental results important to their communities. Examples of projects funded in
the past include:
• Public Access to Data on Pesticide Use and Exposure: Some 200 million pounds of
pesticide active ingredients are applied to California crops each year. These materials
increase crop yield, but also pose concerns for human and environmental health.
Through a partnership with EPA Region 9, the Pesticide Action Network (PAN)
incorporated EPA datasets on ecotoxicity, pesticides compatible with organic production,
and water bodies listed as pesticide-impaired under the Clean Water Act, into their web-
based dataset. The site http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Index.html provides the largest and
most comprehensive collection of information on pesticide registration, regulation, and
toxicity in the world, and receives more than 10,000 visits each month from state
regulatory agencies, researchers, and consumers.
EPM-91
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$421.4) This increase 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.
• (-$5.7) This decrease represents anticipated savings accomplished through more efficient
management and administrative practices, as well as other IT and telecommunication
changes that reflect more economically efficient resource utilization.
• (+2.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency to better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; CAA; TSCA; CERLA; SOW A; PPA; RCRA.
EPM-92
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
EPM-93
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$5,280.0
$100.4
$5,380.4
7.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,799.7
$300.0
$7,099.7
13.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,906.0
$0.0
$6,906.0
17.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$106.3
($300.0)
($193.7)
4.0
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 dedicated implementation of
Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs), and EPA's Homeland Security Strategy.
EPA also works to ensure rapid access to relevant communication tools, accelerated transfers of
data, the development of models and maps to support response activities, and effective Agency
wide communication in emergency situations.
The HSPDs, the Homeland Security Strategy, and use of an Agency-wide Homeland Security
Collaborative Network 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, avoid duplication, and build a network of partners so
that EPA's homeland security efforts are integrated into the Federal homeland security efforts.
This program 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. Homeland Security information technology efforts
are closely coordinated with the Agency-wide Information Security and Infrastructure activities
which is managed in the Information Security and IT/Data Management programs.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Beginning in FY 2008, the Agency is formalizing liaisons to the U.S. Intelligence Community to
enhance coordination on matters related to classified and other sensitive but unclassified
information. The Administrator commissioned a programmatic review of EPA's national
security information program that identified this as a potential gap in the existing program.
EPM-94
-------
EPA's FY 2008 resources will continue to support the Agency's rapid response infrastructure by
continuing deployment of an integrated Internet/Wide Area Network (WAN)/Local Area
Network (LAN) solution - Mobile Laboratory LAN-in-a-Box - that equips mobile laboratories
with high speed, secure access to the Internet and EPA WAN and also delivering increased
network capacity, expanding the Agency's bandwidth and functions (e.g., Voice over IP). These
capabilities will allow secure, reliable, and high-speed data access and communication to first
responders, on-scene coordinators, emergency response teams, and investigators wherever they
are located and regardless of what jurisdiction they operate under and support EPA's Homeland
Security Presidential Directive responsibilities.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$812.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing and new
FTE.
• (+4.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This increase will improve
coordination on intelligence matters between EPA and the U.S. Intelligence community
as well as improved coordination between EPA and other response organizations.
• (-$705.7) This change reflects progress in completing LAN-in-a-Box deployments.
• (-$0.5) This decrease represents a redistribution of IT and telecommunications resources
to better reflect utilization.
Statutory Authority:
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-95
-------
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): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$4,717.4
$13,306.1
$985.1
$19,008.6
47.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$7,242.7
$45,251.0
$1,571.6
$54,065.3
59.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$7,787.0
$25,586.0
$1,857.0
$35,230.0
59.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$544.3
($19,665.0)
$285.4
($18,835.3)
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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Water Security
In FY 2008, 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-96
-------
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 continuing to evaluate 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 2008, more than 9,000 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 60% of the population, will
rely on a secure and up-to-date web-based environment on water system security as members of
WaterlSAC.
Counterterrorism
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to train all EPA criminal investigators in "Hot Zone Forensic
Evidence Collection" typically utilized at crime scenes involving weapons of mass destruction as
well as environmental crimes. 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). Advanced crime scene processing
training will also be provided to those EPA criminal investigators assigned to the National
Counter Terrorism Evidence Response Team (NCERT). EPA criminal investigators will
continue to provide environmental expertise for criminal cases and support the FBI and
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during select National Special Security Events (NSSE)
and in the event of a terrorist attack anywhere in the United States. Additionally, EPA criminal
investigators will provide more robust support, involving evidence collection, to the BioWatch,
water security initiative, and RadNet programs. During FY 2008, it is anticipated that the
number of NSSEs and other events to which EPA criminal investigators are deployed will
remain high as a result of the Presidential campaign and its related activities.
Monitoring
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.
EPM-97
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$544.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$0.3) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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 U.S.- Mexico Border Region; Pollution Prosecution Act.
EPM-98
-------
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$1,659.2
$32,692.8
$40,400.0
$74,752.0
148.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,328.7
$44,498.1
$49,774.9
$97,601.7
165.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,381.0
$40,768.0
$45,280.0
$89,429.0
167.6
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$52.3
($3,730.1)
($4,494.9)
($8,172.7)
2.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness and Response program develops and
maintains an agency-wide capability to address environmental decontamination after incidents of
national significance with emphasis on those that may involve Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD). The Agency is working to prepare for incidents that release or introduce dangerous
chemicals or certain foreign plant or animal pathogens or other pests into the environment. The
response to chemicals is different from the response to pests, but for both the goal is to facilitate
safe re-occupancy of buildings or other locations and to protect the production of crops,
livestock, and food in the U.S. The Agency develops Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
(AEGLs) that are needed by first responders and Chemical Risk Managers to help guide response
and preparedness efforts. In addition to informing evacuation or shelter-in-place decisions,
AEGLs are used to help guide the development of chemical protective equipment and chemical
detection limits.
EPA, working with other Federal and state agencies and industry, is addressing the need for
readily available chemical pesticide products for decontamination of agricultural structures,
crops, and livestock and food facilities.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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
economy. The goal is to ensure availability of adequate pesticides to prevent, control, and
recover from a major incident.
In FY 2008, 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
EPM-99
-------
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 maintain the accelerated development of AEGLs that are needed by First Responders
and Chemical Risk Managers for use in chemical emergency and counterterrorism planning,
prevention and response programs. In FY 2008, 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. However, a performance measure
tracking development of proposed AEGL values is included in the Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction Program/Project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$53.3) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1.0) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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-100
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$8,845.1
$3,013.8
$10,800.9
$534.7
$23,194.5
3.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,268.9
$2,079.0
$11,385.1
$594.2
$20,327.2
3.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,345.0
$594.0
$7,870.0
$594.0
$15,403.0
3.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$76.1
($1,485.0)
($3,515.1)
($0.2)
($4,924.2)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program involves activities to ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and operational and that certain physical security procedures are in place to help safeguard staff
in the event of an emergency, protecting the capability of EPA's vital infrastructure assets. The
program also includes the personnel security clearance process and protection of classified
information.
FY 2008 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. In FY 2008, the
Agency will focus on Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 by conducting identity
proofing, registration, and smart card issuance for EPA's 18,500 and more than 12,000 on-site
non-federal workforce. Additionally, EPA will continue its support for physical security
activities, including conducting nationwide physical security and window vulnerability
assessments at EPA's facilities nationwide.
Physical security activities involve conducting nationwide vulnerability assessments at EPA's
191 facilities on a regular basis in accordance with Federal mandates. In FY 2008, 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
EPM-101
-------
adjudicating Federal investigations to determine if employees and select non-Federal workers
are suitable for employment and/or obtaining a smart card, 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. The Agency will also be required to comply with the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004, in which the timelines for initiating and adjudicating federal
investigations are being reduced significantly.
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 strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$74.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1.5) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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-102
-------
Program Area: Indoor Air
EPM-103
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$7,418.0
$583.9
$8,001.9
37.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,519.2
$442.2
$5,961.4
42.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,429.0
$428.0
$5,857.0
39.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($90.2)
($14.2)
($104.4)
-3.0
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 proven
techniques. EPA also recommends that new homes be built using radon-resistant features in
areas where there is elevated radon. This voluntary program includes national, regional, state,
and Tribal programs and activities that promote radon risk reduction activities.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008 EPA will:
• Continue to partner with national organizations and conduct public outreach on radon risks
and solutions;
• Work with states, Tribes, and localities to improve their radon programs to get more risk
reduction; and,
• Continue partnerships that will make radon risk reduction a normal part of doing business in
the marketplace.
In FY 2008, 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; to encourage radon
action during real estate transactions.
EPA will also, continue its work with national partners to inform and motivate public action
using risk estimates from the National Academy of Sciences that show substantial risks
associated with radon exposure.
The Indoor Air program received a rating of "moderately effective" during a 2005 PART
assessment. The Indoor Air program is not regulatory; instead, EPA works toward its goal by
conducting research and promoting appropriate risk reduction actions through voluntary
EPM-104
-------
education and outreach programs. The Agency will continue to focus on making efficiency
improvements and plans to improve transparency by making State radon grantee performance
data available to the public via a website or other easily accessible means.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of additional
homes (new and
existing) with radon
reducing features
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
180,000
FY 2007
Target
190,000
FY 2008
Target
225,000
Units
Homes
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Total Cost (public and
private) per future
premature cancer death
prevented through
lowered radon
exposure.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
450,000
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Dollars
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.
In FY 2008, EPA expects 225,000 additional homes to have radon reducing features bringing the
cumulative number of U.S. homes with radon reducing features to over 2 million. EPA estimates
that this cumulative number will result in approximately 800 future premature cancer deaths
prevented (each year these radon reducing features are in place). EPA will track progress against
the efficiency measure in the table above triennially with the next report date in FY 2009.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$10.4) This decrease reduces funding for non-critical administrative activities.
• (-$79.8) 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.
• (-3.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align regional resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions
will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out
its programs.
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-105
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$19,023.2
$759.9
$19,783.1
71.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$23,464.3
$828.7
$24,293.0
68.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$21,440.0
$788.0
$22,228.0
68.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,024.3)
($40.7)
($2,065.0)
-0.6
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 as well as
assistance to improve indoor air quality in schools, and to promote smoke-free environments for
children.
The Partnership for Clean Indoor Air (PCIA) addresses the 4th worst health risk in poor
developing countries (the World Health Organization estimates 1.6 million premature deaths
each year): the indoor smoke breathed by the more than 3 billion people who burn traditional
fuels (e.g., biomass, coal, dung) indoors for cooking and heating. EPA obtains formal
commitments from partners to address development of sustainable business models and markets
to support changes; establishes criteria to assess technologies for more efficient cooking and
heating approaches; and, assesses health impacts of improvements.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue its national, multi-faceted asthma education and outreach
program, in partnership with other Federal and non-profit agencies, to deliver 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. EPA will promote the adoption of best practices to achieve positive health
outcomes in environmental management of asthma triggers. EPA will also focus its efforts to
reach populations disproportionately impacted by asthma and environmental tobacco smoke.
EPM-106
-------
Through public awareness and mass-media communications such as the Childhood Asthma
"Goldfish" Campaign, EPA and its partners will continue to spread knowledge of comprehensive
asthma care and the importance of environmental management to reduce exposure to indoor
triggers. EPA will continue to work with the health care provider community to integrate
environmental asthma management into the standards of care for asthma. In such public-health
settings, EPA's role as environmental steward reinforces families' trust and acceptance of key
risk-avoidance messages. 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.
Through its partnership agreements, EPA will continue, at reduced level, to reach out to the
school community to encourage adoption of the Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools (IAQ TfS)
approach or comparable indoor air quality programs. For new construction and renovation, EPA
will promote Design Tools for Schools (DTfS)1 a web-based guidance tool, as well as EPA's
Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool (HealthySEAT) which assists school districts in
integrating indoor air quality and performance goals into the design, construction, and renovation
of school buildings. EPA uses partnerships to inform and motivate school officials, school
nurses, teachers, facility managers and planners, and parents to improve IAQ in schools.
EPA will respond to 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 guidance for the control and management of moisture and mold in
commercial and public buildings, comprehensive best practice guidance for IAQ during each
phase of the building cycle and subsequent best practices for indoor environmental quality and
energy efficiency.
Through the PCIA, EPA will address indoor smoke from cooking fires in developing countries.
EPA will continue to develop solutions and focus on two priorities: providing regional trainings
in critical areas, including stove design and performance, pollutant exposure and monitoring, and
developing enterprises to market and sell clean stoves. Together these steps will yield
tremendous health benefits in developing countries. Many of these emissions reductions (e.g., in
Central America, China, and India) also will reduce pollution that is transported across our
borders and the northern hemisphere into the United States.
The Indoor Air program, rated by OMB as "moderately effective" during a 2005 PART
assessment will continue to focus on making efficiency improvements in response to
recommendations in the PART assessment.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of public that
is aware of the asthma
program's media
campaign.
FY 2006
Actual
33
FY 2006
Target
>20
FY 2007
Target
>20
FY 2008
Target
>20
Units
Percentage
' www.epa.gov/iaq/schooldesign last accessed 8/10/2006.
EPM-107
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Measure
Additional health care
professionals trained
annually by EPA and
its partner on the
environmental
management of asthma
triggers.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
FY 2006
Target
2000
FY 2007
Target
FY 2007
Target
2000
FY 2008
Target
FY 2008
Target
2000
Units
Units
Number
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Annual Cost to EPA
per person with asthma
taking all essential
actions to reduce
exposure to indoor
environmental asthma
triggers.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
8.38
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Estimated annual
number of schools
establishing indoor air
quality programs based
on EPA's Tools for
Schools guidance.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
1200
FY 2007
Target
1100
FY 2008
Target
1100
Units
Number
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Average cost to EPA
per student per year in
a school that is
implementing an
Indoor Air Quality
plan.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
2
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Dollars
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 2008, bringing the total number to
approximately 4.9 million people with asthma taking these actions. As part of this goal, EPA
EPM-108
-------
will continue to work to reduce existing disparities between disproportionately impacted
populations and the overall population. EPA will track progress against the efficiency measures
included in the tables above triennially with the next planned report date in FY 2009.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,500.0) This decrease reduces funding for lower priority Schools and Workplaces
program outreach and education efforts by EPA and by its non-governmental not-for-
profit national partners who currently receive funding from EPA. The program will
continue to make adequate progress toward its goals however in 2008, fewer schools
may be reached than initially expected.
• (+$300.0) This increase supports the implementation of the Partnership for Clean Indoor
Air at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). This funding will
support regional trainings in critical areas, such as stove design and performance,
pollutant exposure and monitoring, and developing enterprises to market and sell clean
stoves.
• (+$201.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$26.1) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (-0.6 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align regional resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions
will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out
its programs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990; Title IV of the SARA of 1986.
EPM-109
-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
EPM-110
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$5,695.1
$5,695.1
12.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,063.8
$6,063.8
15.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,203.0
$6,203.0
13.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$139.2
$139.2
-2.0
Program Project Description:
The Child and Aging Health Protection Division (CAHPD) advocates for, and facilitates the
consideration of, children's environmental health concerns, as 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 an emphasis within CAHPD that strives to protect
the health of older adults. This cross-cutting, non-regulatory program works with other EPA
offices, 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.1
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, this program will continue to ensure that EPA's policies and programs explicitly
consider and use the most up-to-date data and methods for protecting children and older adults
from heightened public health risks. EPA also will work to ensure that states, Tribes, and local
governments will effectively incorporate environmental health of children and older adults into
new or existing programs; and that non-governmental organizations and the public (family
members, health care providers, community leaders, etc.) have and use reliable/valid scientific
information when making decisions that impact the health of children and older adults. The
following are examples of current and planned activities:
• Work with other Agency offices to develop guidance for considering health risks to
children in rule making and evaluating the application of such guidance throughout EPA.
• Work within EPA to generate and apply new scientific research, tools and assessments,
and promote easy access to information regarding children's environmental health.
Please refer to: http://vosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/homepage.htm.
EPM-111
-------
Support efforts within the Agency's Regional Offices to address children's environmental
health issues that are of high priority in their states.
• Provide tools, information, and support to build capacity in states, Tribes and local
governments to protect children from environmental health risks. Continue support for
the Healthy Schools Environmental Health Assessment Tool launched in December
2005.
• Support partners outside of the Agency to ensure healthcare providers, civic entities and
the public have access to tools and information needed to protect children and older
adults from environmental health risks. Since 2005, the EPA Children's Environmental
Health Awards program recognizes successful programs, and encourages other
organizations to develop their own programs. EPA also helps provide health
professionals and the public with consultation, education, and referral services through its
support for Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units.
• Continue to support the Agency's global efforts to protect children through ongoing
partnerships with international organizations including the World Health Organization,
the Pan American Health Organization, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development.
• Provide an Agency oversight role, in collaboration with the National Education and
Training Foundation (NEETF), to ensure that NEETF's Environmental Education grants
support the Agency's goals for protecting human health and the environment.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$40.0) 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.
• (-$824.8) This adjustment of Agency resources reflects an increased emphasis on the
integration of children's health issues in ongoing programs throughout the EPA.
• (+$1,000.0) This increase provides funding to award and manage Environmental
Education grants, in order to ensure that children and educators have the information they
need to help protect against health risks.
• (+$4.0) This represents a redistribution of IT and telecommunication resources to better
reflect utilization.
EPM-112
-------
• (-2.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
Executive Order 13045.
EPM-113
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$48,586. 7
$35.4
$48,622.1
389.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$52,142. 7
$130.4
$52,273.1
381.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$49,747.0
$155.0
$49,902.0
379.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,395.7)
$24.6
($2,371.1)
-2.0
Program Project Description:
This program provides the vision, leadership, and support needed to enable EPA to meet its
commitments to protect public health and the environment. Program staff responds to
Congressional requests for information and provides written and oral testimony, briefings, and
briefing materials. The program develops legislative strategies to support program offices and
coordinate Agency appearances before Congress. Staff 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 program also works to increase public awareness and enhance public perceptions of
environmental issues, as well as their social, technological and scientific solutions.
Program staff work with states, local and Tribal governments, and their respective 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). The staff also manages 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 Agencywide FACA policy and guidance.
The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program also contributes to the mission of this
program by disseminating information about 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-114
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The emphasis and priority of these programs are to provide vision and leadership for a full range
of activities that support EPA's mission. The Regional Administrators and their staff also
continue to provide leadership to the Regional offices 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 the Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants and Water
Resources) and begin implementation of the recently passed Energy and Transportation
legislation.
• During FY 2008, 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 is critical to public support and to the
Agency's success in meeting its goals. The program 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.
• Build a stronger EPA partnership with local governments, and to coordinate with other
EPA offices and the Clean Air Advisory Committee, on such issues as recycling,
landfills, Brownfields and the Clean Diesel campaign.
• 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) Implementing the OMB-directed State Grants Performance Measures Template;
b) Leading a Performance Partnership Grants (PPG) initiative to encourage broader
application of PPG programmatic flexibility by the states;
c) Working with the National Academy of Public Administration to complete their
assessment of U.S. Environmental Services Delivery System; and
d) Working with states to develop a longer term Strategic Plan for Performance
Partnerships.
• 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 Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM) ensures that EPA's 48 Federal
advisory committees and sub-committees are in compliance with FACA requirements and
administrative guidelines provided by GSA's Committee Management Secretariat. To
accomplish this, OCEM staff will create uniform policy and guidance, provide oversight of
Federal advisory committees, survey committee members and stakeholders, identify and share
best practices, and train Agency Designated Federal Officers (DFOs) and committee
EPM-115
-------
Chairpersons. These efforts will ensure consistent application of an open process throughout all
of EPA's advisory committees. Key activities include:
• Implementing a comprehensive "assist/oversight visit" process which allows OCEM to
conduct on-site compliance reviews to ensure Agency compliance with FACA as
required by law, including notice and open meeting requirements, recordkeeping
procedures and availability of committee documents for public inspection. In FY 2008,
the Agency will complete at least 10 reviews at the committee level.
• Implementing requirements for FACAs to incorporate performance goals and measurable
results into their Charters.
The Office of Public Affairs (OPA) continues to support the achievement of Agency strategic
goals by communicating Agency proposals, actions, policy, data, research and information
through mass media, print publications and directly via the Web. With the Web becoming a
primary source for Agency information, in FY 2008, OPA will continue the process of reviewing
and consolidating Web content to provide the public with easily accessible, high quality, timely,
coherent and comprehensive information on the Agency's activities and policies. OPA will
continue to coordinate with the Office of Environmental Information to ensure effective
distribution of policy and regulatory information requested by citizens, the media, other
government entities and non-government organizations.
The Office of the Executive Secretariat supports the Agency's strategic goals by continuing to:
• Manage the Agency's correspondence tracking and workflow management database.
• Provide records management support, training, and guidance for Office of the
Administrator staff offices.
• Manage all aspects of the Administrator's and Deputy Administrator's non-
Congressional correspondence and records management, including identification and
maintenance of vital records.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$740.8) 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.
EPM-116
-------
• (-$1,654.9) This decrease represents anticipated savings accomplished through more
efficient management and administrative practices, as well as other IT and
telecommunication changes that reflect more economically efficient resource utilization.
• (-2.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
As provided in Appropriations Act funding; FACA; EAIA; NAFTA Implementation Act;
RLBPHRA; NAAED; LPA-US/MX-BR; CERCLA
EPM-117
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$18,725.7
$1,883.6
$20,609.3
23.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$16,048.5
$1,432.4
$17,480.9
24.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,364.0
$1,433.0
$16,797.0
24.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($684.5)
$0.6
($683.9)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program supports the development and maintenance of the Environmental Information
Exchange Network (the Exchange Network). The Exchange Network is an integrated
information system using standardized data formats and definitions to facilitate information
sharing among EPA and its partners. The Exchange Network provides a centralized approach to
receiving, distributing, and accessing timely and reliable environmental information. This
program provides resources to develop, implement, operate and maintain the Agency's Central
Data Exchange (CDX, www.epa.gov/cdx), EPA's node on the Exchange Network, which is the
point of entry for data submissions to the Agency.
This 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 (E-Gov) 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the major focus is on fulfilling the Agency's E-Gov commitments and supporting
EPA's information technology initiatives. These activities build on efforts started in FY's 2004-
2006 to enhance the availability, quality and analytical usefulness of environmental information
for EPA and its partners and stakeholders. These efforts support data exchange by states, Tribes
and other partners through the use of the Exchange Network and the CDX, EPA's node on the
Exchange Network.
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 to facilitate decisions on
EPM-118
-------
environmental and health issues. After FY 2007, all 50 states and approximately 10 Tribes will
have nodes on the Exchange Network and will be mapping data to the new schemas so it can be
electronically submitted to EPA and shared with other partners. In FY 2008, EPA, states, Tribes,
and territories will continue to re-engineer data systems so information that was previously not
available, or not easily available, can be exchanged using common data standards and computer
language called schemas. These efforts will be closely coordinated with the Agency's program
offices and the system of data registries. As data flows are added, the broader use of data
standards, tools that check data before it is submitted, and reusable schemas will increase the
accuracy and timeliness of the data, improve analytical capabilities, and create savings through
economies of scale.
In addition, EPA will improve security by implementing electronic reporting standards that
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, EPA Enterprise Architecture, and data management activities.
Coordination helps to ensure that necessary security measures are adhered to, system platforms
follow the Agency's Enterprise Architecture, and data management follows documented
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.
FY 2006
Actual
32
FY 2006
Target
29
FY 2007
Target
36
FY 2008
Target
43
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.
FY 2006
Actual
62,000
FY 2006
Target
47,000
FY 2007
Target
55000
FY 2008
Target
70000
Units
Users
EPM-119
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$250.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$935.4) The reduction in resources reflects a continued shift in emphasis from building
infrastructure to adding data flows and Web services, and also reflects efficiencies
resulting from scheduling Enterprise Content Management System (ECMS) and
enterprise solutions deployments to better align with Agency readiness and the lifecycle
phase of the E-Rulemaking project.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD & DAA; TSCA; FIFRA;
FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; CERCLA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA.; CCA;
PRA; FOIA; CSA; Privacy Act Electronic Freedom of Information Act.
EPM-120
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$2,498.5
$2,498.5
8.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,501.7
$3,501.7
13.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,261.0
$3,261.0
12.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($240.7)
($240.7)
-1.0
Program Project Description:
The Small Business Ombudsman (SBO) serves as EPA's gateway and leading advocate for small
business regulatory issues. The SBO partners with state Small Business Environmental
Assistance Programs (SBEAPs) nationwide, and with 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.1
The core SBO functions include participating in the regulatory development process, operating
the Small Business Ombudsman Hotline, supporting the Small Business Environmental
Homepage, participating in program and Regional Offices' small business related meetings, and
supporting internal and external small business activities. The SBO's outreach and
communication services help small businesses learn about new EPA actions and developments
and help EPA learn about the concerns and needs of small businesses. The SBO provides a
service to EPA, other Federal agencies, state SBEAPs, and trade associations by disseminating
information and providing tools that assist small businesses with their environmental needs. The
SBO supports partnerships with, and provides training to, state SBEAPs 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. The SBO provides technical assistance in the
form of workshops, conferences, hotlines, and training forums designed to help small businesses
become better environmental performers and helps our partners provide the assistance that small
businesses need.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Small Business Ombudsman will:
• Support and promote EPA's Small Business Strategy and the President's Management
Agenda, by encouraging small businesses, states, and trade associations to comment on
Please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/sbo/.
EPM-121
-------
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.
• Serve as the Agency's Point of Contact for the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act by
coordinating efforts with the Agency's program offices to further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
• 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.
Support and promote a state-lead multi-media initiative and coordinate efforts within the
Agency.
• Strengthen and support partnerships with state SBEAPs and trade associations, as well as
provide recognition to state SBEAPs, small businesses, and trade associations that have
directly impacted the improved environmental performance of small businesses. Develop
a compendium of small business environmental assistance success stories that
demonstrate what really works.
• Improve the environmental performance and administrative efficiencies within eight
business sectors that have a large proportion of small businesses, through the Sectors
Strategy program.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$67.1) This increase is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a recalculation of base workforce costs.
• (-1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
• (-$307.8) This decrease represents anticipated savings accomplished through more
efficient management and administrative practices, as well as other IT and
telecommunication changes that reflect more economically efficient resource utilization.
Statutory Authority:
CAA of 1990, section 507.
EPM-122
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$1,950.4
$1,950.4
9.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,646.6
$2,646.6
11.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,466.0
$2,466.0
11.8
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($180.6)
($180.6)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program provides technical assistance to small businesses, and to Headquarters and
Regional employees, to ensure that small, disadvantaged, women-owned, Historically
Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone), and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small
Businesses (SDVOSBs) 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, and 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.1
FY 2008 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 Small Businesses (WOSBs), HUBZone firms, and SDVOSBs
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 (SB A)
every two years. EPA's 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.) EPA
exceeded four of its small business goals in FY2006, and is on track to meet or exceed the
remaining goals (HUBZone and Service-Disabled Veteran Owned firms) by the end of FY 2007.
The Agency's FY2008/2009 goals will be negotiated during the summer of 2007.
Please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/osdbu/.
EPM-123
-------
EPA's 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 2008, special emphasis will be placed on implementing
Section 811 of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 that authorizes contracting
officers to restrict competition to eligible WOSBs for certain Federal contracts in industries in
which the SBA has determined that WOSBs are underrepresented or substantially
underrepresented in Federal procurement. We will also continue to emphasize contracting with
SDVOSBs, 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 5.5% procurement goal for WOSBs, 3% goal for
SDVOSBs, and 7.5% goal for 8(a) firms.
Under its Indirect Procurement Program, EPA has a statutory goal of 10% utilization of Minority
Business Enterprises/Women-Owned Business Enterprises for research conducted under the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, as well as a statutory 8% 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 begin implementation of its rule for the participation of
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in procurements funded through EPA's assistance
agreements, as well as the certification requirements of the final rule.
EPM-124
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$181.3) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on recalculation of base workforce costs.
• (+$0.7) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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-125
-------
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$11,576.0
$11,576.0
51.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,508.4
$12,508.4
57.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$12,960.0
$12,960.0
57.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$451.6
$451.6
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 and environment should
a chemical release occur. Facilities are required to update their RMP at least once every five
years, and 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 and also works with industry partners to produce tools and guidance used by industry,
government and local communities to control hazardous materials. EPA 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 are a valuable source of information 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
and analytical support 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
EPM-126
-------
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.
Additional information on the risk management and community right-to-know programs can be
found on the internet at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/RMPS.htm
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Agency will continue its efforts to help state and local partners implement their
risk management programs. 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 also will use information
generated by the RMPs 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 CAA 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 and inspection program. The audit and inspection
program is used to continuously improve the quality of risk management programs as well as
check compliance with the requirements.
In FY 2008, EPA activities in support of these efforts include the following:
• EPA and other implementing agencies will perform their audit and inspection obligations
through a combination of desk audits of RMP plans and at least 400 on-site facility
inspections. EPA will continue its extensive quality assurance oversight of data
collection and reporting procedures.
• 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. Full transition is
expected to be complete in early FY 2009.
• EPA and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration will continue improvements
to the CAMEO software suite by updating the MARPLOT® mapping program, adding
new information to the CAMEO chemical library to assist first responders and emergency
planners, and, in conjunction with industry associations, initiating development of a new
Chemical Reactivity Management software system that will allow users to more
accurately identify and manage hazards involving reactive chemical mixtures.
• EPA will publish new RMP implementation guidance for the agriculture sector - the
largest industry sector covered by the RMP rule. The new guidance will provide this
sector with additional assistance in meeting their compliance obligations under the rule.
EPM-127
-------
• EPA will participate with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to continue
development of the new international NFPA Hazardous Chemicals Code (NFPA-400).
After its final publication in 2008, this new code will eventually be adopted by state and
local authorities as the basic standard for storage and handling of hazardous chemicals in
most commercial sites. EPA also will continue working with NFPA on revisions to the
Liquefied Petroleum Gas safety code (NFPA-58) to make important improvements in
safety requirements for propane facilities nationwide.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Chemical, Organism, and Pesticide Risks objectives.
Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+0.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
• (+$477.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$21.8) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce international travel as
well as a reduction to program travel expenses in Headquarters and the Regions.
• (-$7.5) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (+$3.4) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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-128
-------
TRI / Right to Know
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$13,914.4
$13,914.4
44.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$15,243.4
$15,243.4
44.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,728.0
$15,728.0
43.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$484.6
$484.6
-1.0
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; 2) makes that information available to the
public through a variety of means, including a publicly accessible national database; 3) operates
and maintains the TRI (TRIS), TRI-Explorer and TRI-Made Easy (TRI-ME) (www.epa.gov/tri)
systems to facilitate the program's data collection and reporting requirements; and 4) provides
compliance assistance to TRI reporting facilities through outreach efforts such as informational
mailings, workshops, the Internet, and telephone hotlines.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2008, EPA will continue its efforts to reduce the TRI reporting burden on industry and
improve TRI data quality by developing and implementing regulations to reduce reporting
requirements without compromising the utility or quality of the data; improving and distributing
software for the TRI-Made Easy (TRI-ME) data collection tool, including the development of a
web-based application; and re-engineering the TRI data processing flow (i.e., from collection
through dissemination) in an effort to better align with EPA's Enterprise Architecture.
Web will be web-based software to help facility owners and operators complete their
Form R and Form A certification statements. These statements are required by the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Section 313 (TRI). TRI-ME Web will
be an interactive, intelligent, user-friendly software tool that guides facility owners and operators
through the TRI reporting process.
TRIS-II requires 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 will enable
direct and secure access of TRI data by the Agency's new TRI data mart, thereby providing real-
time updates and Agency -wide access to complete TRI information.
In addition, EPA will continue to provide TRI reporting facilities with compliance assistance
through workshops, web-based reference tools, and telephone hotline support. EPA will also
EPM-129
-------
continue working to 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 the Exchange Network program to coordinate more
efficient and effective data collection and system access using EPA's CDX node on the
Exchange Network. TRI data collection and reporting use the data standards and reporting
requirements outlined in the IT/Data Management program, which closely links the programs
and ensures appropriate information security. The TRI program implements information security
measures as outlined by the Information Security program and in compliance with FISMA
regulations.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$34.7) 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.
• (+$519.3) The additional funding supports future TRI system enhancements by using the
Integrated Portal which allows EPA and its partners to access, exchange and integrate
standardized local, Regional and national environmental and public health data, in various
technical media, which EPA has stored in centralized data marts.
• (-1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; SARA; EPCRA; CAA and amendments; CWA and amendments;
SDWA and amendments; TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; FFDCA; ERD & DAA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA;
PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA; Pollution Prevention Act.
EPM-130
-------
Tribal - Capacity Building
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$11,841.6
$11,841.6
77.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$11,435. 7
$11,435.7
74.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$11,477.0
$11,477.0
73.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$41.3
$41.3
-1.0
Program Project Description:
Under Federal environmental statutes, EPA 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 Office leads the Agency-wide effort to
ensure environmental protection in Indian country.
(See http://www.epa.gov/indian/policyintitvs.htm
information.)
and http://www.epa.gov/indian/ for more
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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The ability to comprehensively and accurately examine conditions and make assessments
provides a blueprint for planning future activities through the development of Tribal/EPA
Environmental Agreements (TEAs) or similar Tribal environmental plans that address and
EPM-131
-------
support priority environmental multi-media concerns in Indian country. Complementary to the
efforts of providing an environmental presence through the Indian General Assistance Program
(GAP), in FY 2008 EPA will continue to expand its information technology infrastructure,
known as the Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture (TPEA), to organize environmental data on
a Tribal basis, bringing together data from different agencies, programs and tribes in a format
providing a clear, up-to-date picture of environmental conditions in Indian country. TPEA is
designed to track the following three classes of information: environmental information from
national monitoring and facility management databases; EPA programmatic information,
generally utilizing customized databases where data are input by regional program offices; and
individual sets of information to be submitted by Tribes, a process that is only just beginning.
The entire system is web based.
EPA's Indian Policy affirms the principle 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 continues 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, described in Regional Oversight Reports, includes
review of Regional GAP programs and individual GAP grant files. These program oversight
activities will continue in FY 2008.
Performance Targets:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to support standardization and a crosswalk of Tribal identifier
codes to integrate and consistently report Tribal information across Federal agencies. One
example of this effort is the adoption by EPA of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Tribal
identifier code system as an agency standard for all the EPA databases. TPEA will also, by FY
2008, compile and display the "universe" of Tribal EPA regulated facilities, assigning each one
to a specific Tribal entity, through the use of an Indian country flag in the EPA Facility Registry
System. This type of cross-platform data analysis was not possible without EPA's TPEA
initiative. 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. Both kinds of measures (ambient quality and
emissions) are important in the development of outcome-based performance measures for EPA
Tribal programs.
In FY 2008 TPEA will work to link directly to the Sanitation Deficiency System Database (SDS)
of the Indian Health Service (IHS). Information in the IHS SDS system is reported in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
EPM-132
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$43.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$0.6) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (-$2.0) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
Indian General Assistance Program Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4368b (1992), as amended.
EPM-133
-------
Program Area: International Programs
EPM-134
-------
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Program Area: International Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks; Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$4,229.9
$4,229.9
8.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$4,137.0
$4,137.0
7.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,022.0
$4,022.0
6.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($115.0)
($115.0)
-1.0
Program Project Description:
The Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC) is an international organization that was
created by the United States, Canada, and Mexico under the North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), a side agreement to the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). The CEC addresses regional environmental concerns, helps prevent
potential trade and environmental conflicts, and promotes the effective enforcement of
environmental law. The CEC is comprised of a Council, a Secretariat, and a Joint Public
Advisory Committee. U.S. participation in the CEC is coordinated by the EPA Administrator,
who represents the United States on the three-member Council that governs the Commission.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will ensure that the CEC supports the objectives of the NAAAEC. In particular, the CEC
will facilitate trade expansion while protecting the environment by:
• Increasing the comparability, reliability and compatibility of national and sub-regional
information.
• Strengthening institutions and sharing environmental knowledge among a broad range of
stakeholders.
• Promoting policies and actions that provide mutual benefits for the environment, trade
and the economy.
EPA will continue to strengthen cooperation and promote public participation in the
development and improvement of environmental laws, regulations, procedures, policies and
practices. EPA will support the CEC's efforts to strengthen capacity and improve compliance
with environmental laws while encouraging voluntary measures on the part of industry. EPA
also will continue to work with the CEC to implement quality assurance mechanisms,
transparency, and cost effectiveness.
EPM-135
-------
EPA will support the CEC's efforts to publish report data on pollutant releases and transfers
from industrial activities in North America with an emphasis on increasing the comparability of
Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs) and building Mexico's capacity to collect and
report data. EPA will continue to support the development of an integrated monitoring program
for the sound management of chemicals and the development of a digital North American
Environmental Atlas.
EPA will support CEC efforts as it works with the Parties to the NAAEC to: 1) strengthen
enforcement of environmental laws; 2) facilitate the movement of legal materials across borders
by improving the exchange of information, training customs and other law enforcement officials;
and 3) build the capacity of legal and judicial systems, with an emphasis on Mexico. The CEC
and the Parties to the NAAEC are working to develop risk assessment guidelines to protect
North America's marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems from the harmful effects of
invasive alien species.
The CEC continues efforts on the Sound Management of Chemicals program, which promotes
regional cooperation and capacity building for pollution prevention, source reduction, and
pollution control for chemicals of common concern. North American Regional Action Plans
were developed and are being implemented for mercury, lindane, and dioxin and furans.
In addition, EPA will continue to address the environmental concerns associated with increased
trade. The Agency will work to decouple economic growth from negative environmental
impacts by: 1) promoting the North American market for renewable energy; 2) encouraging
green purchasing; 3) expanding the use of market based mechanisms to increase sustainable
trade while encouraging conservations; and 4) developing a tri-national approach to prevent
trade-related pathways for invasive alien species.
Performance Targets:
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 all 5 Goals of EPA's Strategic Plan. Currently, there are no performance measures for this
specific program.
FY 2008 Change from 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$97.7) 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. With the maturation of the CEC program, the opportunity of transferring lessons
learned, achieving program implementation savings, and enhanced environmental gains
are being implemented. This reduction will not impede Agency efforts to maximize
efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
• (-1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
EPM-136
-------
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
• (-$18.2) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (+$0.9) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
NAFTA; NAAEC.
EPM-137
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$1,695.8
$1,695.8
9.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,861.2
$1,861.2
8.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,945.0
$1,945.0
8.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$83.8
$83.8
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA is a member of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) and the Trade Policy Review
Group (TPRG), interagency mechanisms that are organized and coordinated by the Office of the
United States Trade Representative (USTR) to provide advice, guidance and clearance to the
USTR in the development of U.S. international trade and investment policy. This input pertains
to comprehensive multilateral trade rounds (e.g., the ongoing Doha round of the World Trade
Organization (WTO)), bilateral or plurilateral free trade agreements, and other matters. In
addition, USTR and EPA co-manage the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee
(TEPAC), a Congressionally-mandated private sector advisory group that provides advice and
information in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of U.S.
trade policy.
The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) section of the Trade Act of 2002 requires that the U.S.
seek provisions in each trade agreement to prevent lowering environmental standards or
weakening the enforcement of existing laws to attract investment or trade. It also calls for
environmental reviews of trade agreements and 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.
In its capacity as a member of the TPSC and TPRG, EPA performs three major functions
pursuant to the TPA. First, by contributing to the development, negotiation and implementation
of environment-related provisions in all new U.S. free trade agreements, EPA helps to ensure
that U.S. trading partner countries improve and enforce their domestic environmental laws,
which promotes sound environmental practices. In addition, EPA facilitates trade in
environmentally-preferable goods and services during negotiations. As U.S. trading partner
countries pursue more environmentally-sound economic development under the trade
agreement's environmental provisions, reduced growth in environmental impacts such as air
pollution and the inadvertent transmission of invasive alien species is expected. A second major
function involves helping to develop the U.S. Government's (USG) environmental reviews of
each new free trade agreement. As a complement of this effort, we encourage and support our
trade partners in conducting their own assessments of the environmental implications of trade
liberalization. EPA's third major function involves helping to negotiate and implement the
EPM-138
-------
environmental cooperation agreements that parallel each new trade agreement. EPA and other
entities of the USG 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
During FY 2008, the U.S. will continue its engagement in multilateral trade negotiations and will
initiate and/or conclude new bilateral free trade agreements 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 (approximately four per year) as
well as ongoing multilateral trade negotiations through the WTO, EPA will contribute to the
associated environmental reviews and environmental cooperation agreements by: developing
baseline assessments of existing environmental law and enforcement regimes in a number of
U.S. trading partner countries; advocating greater attention to invasive species and other
concerns associated with the movement of traded goods EPA also provides targeted capacity
building support under the environmental cooperation agreements already developed in parallel
with concluded U.S. free trade agreements- including potential activities- with Jordan, Chile,
Bahrain, Morocco, Singapore, seven countries in Central America and the Caribbean, countries
in the Andean region, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and possibly Malaysia, Thailand and/or
South Korea. These priorities are established through a State Department-chaired and -led inter-
agency process in which EPA is a full member, with additional input provided by the USTR-led
TPSC process.
In addition, to facilitate a successful reengagement and possible redirection 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. Based on decisions from the interagency TPSC, 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, in FY 2008 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. In this regard, EPA also will seek to
expand the voluntary Pacific Rim Ports Air Quality Collaboration (now made up of the U.S. and
China) to other major trading partners in the Pacific Rim and possibly beyond.
Performance Targets:
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, EPA's 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 U.S 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 2008 of ongoing
work to develop baseline assessments of the environmental law and enforcement regimes of nine
EPM-139
-------
trading partner countries, EPA will be better positioned to advance new performance measures
and objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$108.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$25.0) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (+$0.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
Trade Act of 2002; Executive Order 13141 (Environmental Review of Trade Agreements);
Executive Order 13277 (Delegation of Certain Authorities and Assignment of Certain Functions
Under the Trade Act of 2002); WTO Agreements; NAFTA; NAAEC; PPA.
EPM-140
-------
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 and Pesticide Risks
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$7,687.0
$7,687.0
39.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,390.3
$6,390.3
37.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,311.0
$5,311.0
27.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($1,079.3)
($1,079.3)
-10.0
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
effort. As globalization continues and as we better understand the interdependences of
ecosystems and the transport of pollutants, it becomes clearer that the actions of other countries
can affect the U.S. 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. Air quality in the U.S. is affected by emissions from other
countries. 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 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Clean Air. In FY 2008, 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, as well as
EPM-141
-------
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 to
achieve reductions in PM, NOx and other emissions. For example, EPA will work with
China to reduce dioxin and furans from cement kilns and assess and reduce emissions of
PM and 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, and
transfer air quality management programs and methods to the countries of Central
America.
• 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 2008, EPA will continue its capacity-building program to address water
quality issues worldwide.
• Drinking water. EPA will continue to promote the development and implementation of
Water Safety Plans in Latin America and Asia. This work includes strengthening
institutional capacity to develop monitoring and surveillance systems for drinking water
quality as well as enhancing the performance of drinking water treatment plants.
Additionally, EPA will continue working to establish sustainable approaches for
financing water system improvement projects at the local, municipal, and national levels.
• Wastewater. EPA is working with national governments in Central America to build
regulatory frameworks for wastewater discharges. This effort will focus on building
capacity to implement the regional model wastewater discharge regulation, and will
include training on inspection of wastewater treatment plants and 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 and will seek U.S. ratification of international treaties that
are critical to efforts in addressing vessel and land-based marine pollution. EPA also will
work to improve the environmental profile of ports and vessels as ports emerge as a
nexus of expanding global trade.
Sound management of toxics. In FY 2008, as part of its effort to reduce global sources of
persistent bioaccumulative toxics, EPA will continue to give priority to reducing the global use
and emission of mercury. EPA is a global leader in the development and implementation of
Global Partnerships for Mercury Reduction. EPA's mercury partnership work has focused on
EPM-142
-------
four sectors - chlor-alkali, products, combustion, and artisanal mining - which together account
for over 80% of global anthropogenic atmospheric emissions of mercury1.
In 2008, EPA will demonstrate measurable successes achieved directly and through leveraged
contributions of other partners, including chlor-alkali industry pilot demonstration work in
Russia and Mexico and small scale gold mining and refining demonstrations in Brazil and West
Africa. EPA will publicize successful approaches and corresponding measurable results online
in order to disseminate information among Global Mercury Partners. In addition, opportunities
for larger reductions in targeted mercury use sectors will be explored in key countries and
regions such as Russia, India, China, Brazil, and Africa.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of countries
completing phase out
of leaded gasoline.
(incremental)
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
7
Units
Countries
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of countries
introducing low sulfur
in fuels, (incremental)
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
2
Units
Countries
FY 2008 Change from 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$978.4 / -10.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that
will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. With the
maturation of the ICB program, the opportunity of transferred lessons learned, achieving
program implementation savings, and enhanced environmental gains will result in greater
efficiencies.
• (-$92.1) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (-$8.8) This reflects a decrease in workforce support associated with the FTE reduction
for capacity building activities.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; FIFRA; CAA; TSCA; NEPA; CWA; SOW A; RCRA; CERCLA; NAFTA; OAPCA;
MPRSA; CRCA.
1 UNEP Global Mercury Assessment, 2002: http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Report/Final%20Assessment%20report.htm
EPM-143
-------
POPs Implementation
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 2006
Actuals
$1,707.9
$1,707.9
10.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,808.7
$1,808.7
12.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,831.0
$1,831.0
11.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$22.3
$22.3
-1.0
Program Project Description:
This program supports EPA's international efforts to reduce Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POPs). Domestic POPs-related activities and associated funding are included in the Toxic
Substances: Chemical Risk Management program. EPA's international activities under this
program focus on reducing POPs under the Stockholm Convention1. Long-range and
transboundary atmospheric transport and deposition of POPs such as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), dioxins, and furans are a continuing threat to human health and ecosystems. After
release, these pollutants can be transported far from their sources, enter the ecosystem, and
bioaccumulate through the food chain. To reduce the risks posed to the American public, both
international and domestic sources must be addressed.
To demonstrate the U.S. commitment to international action on these chemicals, EPA is working
to mitigate potential risk from POPs reaching the U.S. by long range transport by: 1)
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 2) better inter- and intra-country coordination on POPs implementation activities
through improved access to POPs technical, regulatory and program information from all
sources, including the Internet.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue efforts to reduce sources of POPs worldwide. Efforts will focus
on regions and countries whose POPs releases are having the most significant impact on U.S.
human health and the environment, specifically Russia, China, India, and Central America. EPA
will transfer innovative U.S. technologies to these countries and regions, and will help develop
regulatory and financial infrastructure for sustainable projects.
In FY 2008, EPA will assist Russia in inventory development, repackaging, laboratory testing,
and environmentally-safe storage of up to 700 tons of obsolete pesticides, including pesticides
containing POPs and heavy metals. EPA also will continue working with Russia on
development of infrastructure for environmentally-safe destruction of PCBs and obsolete
pesticides. The pilot demonstration program will include destruction of 100 tons of PCB liquids
For more information on the Stockholm Convention, see http://www.pops.int
EPM-144
-------
and 50 tons of obsolete and prohibited pesticides. In addition, EPA will assist China in inventory
development and reduction of dioxins/furans emissions from the Chinese cement sector, which
produced over half of the world's cement in 2005.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Mean maternal blood
levels of chlordane
(measured as the
metabolites
oxychlordane and
trans-nonachlor) in
indigenous populations
in the Arctic.
(cumulative)
FY 2006
Actual
1.3
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
1.25
Units
ug/1
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Mean maternal blood
levels of
polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs)
(measured as Aroclor
1260) in indigenous
populations in the
Arctic, (cumulative)
FY 2006
Actual
6.3
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
6.15
Units
ug/1
Data for these measures are not available annually because of the long biological residence of the
selected congeners of about 3-5 years.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$53.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$31.5) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (-$0.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; FIFRA; CAA; TSCA; NEPA; CWA; MPRSA.
EPM-145
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$8,145.2
$8,145.2
27.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,061.0
$6,061.0
24.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,646.0
$4,646.0
21.2
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($1,415.0)
($1,415.0)
-3.0
Program Project Description:
The 2,000 mile border between the U.S. and Mexico 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 United States. 432,000 of the 14
million people in the region live in 1,200 colonias1, which are unincorporated communities
characterized by substandard housing and unsafe drinking water.
The key areas of focus for the Border 2012 Program in FY 2008 will continue to include: (1)
improving water quality in the region; (2) improving availability of low sulfur diesel fuel on the
border; (3) the stabilization of abandoned hazardous waste sites; (4) removal of used tire piles
along the U.S.-Mexico Border; (5) defining baseline and alternative scenarios for air emissions
reductions along the border region; and (6) binational emergency preparedness drills and
exercises at border sister cities. Note that additional Border efforts are described in the
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border Program Project Narrative.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Program is a joint effort between the U.S. and Mexican
governments.2 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. Results achieved to date include: (1) drinking water improvements at
seven3 Baja California Indigenous Communities; (2) construction of adequate water and
wastewater infrastructure for over 6.7 million border residents; (3) cleanup of 62 tons3 of waste
associated with undocumented immigration in Tohono O'odham Nation; (4) total cleanup of
INNOR site in Mexicali (420,000 tires4 removed), total cleanup of CENTINELA site
(1,200,000 tires4) and Juarez site (one million tires); (5) the removal of 1,976 tons4 of hazardous
waste and contaminated soil at the Metales y Derivados site; and (6) 13 Sister City plans that
1 http://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php
2 http://www.epa.gov/border2012/pdf/2012 english.pdf
3 Tribal Accomplishments and Issue Report, Border 2012 National Coordinators Meeting, April 25-27, 2006
4 Personal Communication, Emily Pimentel (Project Officer), EPA Region 9
EPM-146
-------
establish cooperative measures and exercises in response to oil and hazardous substance
incidents along the border.
Significant advances are being made in bringing cleaner fuels to the border region and
demonstrating the use of advanced technologies to control pollution and improve fuel efficiency.
Emissions have been reduced and fuel efficiency improved by retrofitting school buses in Laredo
and Nogales and vehicle fleets in Tijuana and Las Cruces. Binational participation in the West
Coast Clean Diesel and Blue Skyways Collaboratives encourages air pollution reductions from
diesel engine retrofits, fuel enhancements, and improvements in efficiency. The Border 2012
Program will continue efforts to define baseline and alternative scenarios for air emissions
reductions along the Border and estimate the impact on air quality and human exposure. The
target date for achieving full implementation of the reduction strategies to achieve the desired
objectives is 2012.
The Border program successfully implemented Phase 1, the stabilization of the Metales y
Derivados site, an abandoned, secondary lead smelter in Tijuana, which resulted in the removal
of nearly 2,000 tons of hazardous waste. The Metales y Derivados remediation is now in the site
characterization, field sampling, and design phases. These actions are consistent with the Border
2012 draft Binational Policy on Clean-Up and Restoration5. In FY 2008, incorporating lessons
learned, the Border 2012 Program will focus on remediating other hazardous waste sites on the
border.
Over 10 million used tires are stockpiled across the U.S.-Mexico Border. These vast tire piles
are a major health and environmental hazard. For example, tire piles in Cuidad Juarez (approx. 4
million) and in Mexicali (approx. 1.5 million) pose a significant risk to approximately 400,000
and 800,000 border residents respectively, because of vector-borne diseases such as malaria,
dengue fever and acute respiratory illness from uncontrolled tire fires. Realizing the magnitude
of the problem, the Border 2012 program will work to reduce the risk of used tire piles by
creating markets for used tires, such as road paving and burning in cement kilns.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cleanup waste sites in
the United States-
Mexico border region.
(incremental)
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
1
Units
sites
FY 2008 Change from 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$362.1) 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
1 http://www.epa.gov/border2012
EPM-147
-------
• (-3.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
• (-$33.3) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (-$1,020.0) This reduction will delay the removal and clean-up of tire piles and postpone
the clean-up of an abandoned secondary lead smelter mine.
• (+$0.4) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; CAA; TSCA; RCRA; PPA; FIFRA; Annual Appropriation Acts.
EPM-148
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
EPM-149
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$4,198.5
$341.0
$4,539.5
8.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,562.1
$788.6
$6,350.7
15.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,583.0
$792.0
$6,375.0
15.8
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$20.9
$3.4
$24.3
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Information Security program protects the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of
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 operation and maintenance of the Automated
Security Self Evaluation and Reporting Tool (ASSERT) documentation system.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 implement 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.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Federal
Information Security
Management Act
FY 2006
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
EPM-150
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
reportable systems that
are certified and
accredited.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$69.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$48.7) The decrease reflects expected efficiencies that will be achieved in infrastructure
support.
Statutory Authority:
FISMA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; PR; EFOIA.
EPM-151
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$98,871.4
$4,412.9
$130.9
$38.8
$16,646.2
$120,100.2
515.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$96,807.2
$4,268.0
$175.9
$32.5
$17,120.4
$118,404.0
488.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$91,019.0
$3,499.0
$177.0
$34.0
$16,338.0
$111,067.0
488.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($5,788.2)
($769.0)
$1.1
$1.5
($782.4)
($7,337.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This 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 1) implements the Agency's E-Government (E-
Gov) responsibilities; designs, develops and manages the Agency's Internet and Intranet
resources including the Integrated Portal, 2) supports the development, collection, management,
and analysis of environmental data (including 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, 3) provides a secure, reliable, and capable information infrastructure based on a
sound enterprise architecture which includes data standardization, integration, and public access,
4) manages the Agency's Quality System ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and
adhere to Federal guidelines, and supports Regional information technology infrastructure,
administrative and environmental programs, and telecommunications. These functions are
integral to the implementation of Agency information technology programs and systems like the
Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX) and Permit Compliance System (PCS).
Agency offices rely on the IT/Data Management program and its capabilities to develop and
implement tools for ready access to accurate and timely data. Recent partnerships include
portals projects with the Offices of Research and Development and Air and Radiation to access
scientific and program data. The IT/Data Management program also supports the Agency's
Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) program. The CPIC program is a structured,
integrated approach to managing IT investments, and ensures that all IT investments align with
the EPA mission and support business needs while minimizing risks and maximizing returns
throughout the investment's lifecycle. The Exhibit 300 is a key tool to summarize the business
EPM-152
-------
cases of EPA's major IT investments. Copies of EPA's Exhibit 300s at the following EPA
website: http://www.epa.gov/oei/cpic.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA's Information Technology community will continue to focus on the Agency's
Technology Initiative1 and fulfilling the Agency's E-Gov commitments. The Agency's IT/Data
Management program forms the core of this effort with its focus on building and implementing
the Agency's Integrated Portal and Enterprise Content Management System (ECMS), developing
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 and 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 hard-copy and electronic release in calendar year mid December 2007.
In FY 2008 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
1 Office of Environmental Information's (OEI) FY 2006 Technology Initiative has three major components: 1)
Building on its Analytical Capacity and Indicators work, OEI will uncover and fill data gaps, and develop response
capacity; 2) Using the portal and Exchange Network, OEI will increase the integration of quality data, streamline
transactions to foster collaboration, reduce the data entry burden, and improve decision making; and 3) OEFs
Readiness to Serve initiative will build capacity and infrastructure to allow more EPA employees to telecommute or
work safely and securely in the field.
EPM-153
-------
cost) for the range of program needs. This includes innovative multi-year leasing that sustains
and renews technical services in a least-cost, stable manner as technology changes over time
(e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance).
In addition to supporting key components of EPA's Technology Initiative, IT/Data Management
will continue to provide local program offices in the Regions' critical support for hardware
requirements, software programming and applications, records management systems, data base
services, local area network activities, intranet web design, and desktop support. EPA's
environmental information needs require the Agency to ensure that it is keeping pace with the
states in the areas of data collection, management and utilization. Additionally, this program will
continue to focus on information security and the need for each Region to have an internal IT
security capacity. The Regional office 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 to better address OMB's IT reporting requirements.
EPA's E-Gov participation and contributions continue in FY 2008 with the coordination,
development and implementation of the Business Gateway, Geospatial One-Stop, and e-
Authentication. Key activities ensure that access to critical data (e.g., geospatial information,
federal regulations) is increased through the Geospatial One-Stop portal and the Business
Gateway and its Business Portal providing opportunities for collaboration and intergovernmental
partnerships, reducing duplication of data investments, and offering the public easy access to
important federal services for businesses.
IT/Data Management efforts are integral to the Exchange Network and Information Security
programs. Together these programs work to design, develop and deploy secure systems and
analytical tools to promote sound environmental decision-making.
In FY 2008, EPA expects savings from the first phase of the Network Optimization Project effort
of key IT services and solutions. The services included in this effort include email services,
access to data files, telephone communications, and Enterprise Content Management System
(ECMS). The end result will be changes to the Agency's IT environment including the ability to
manage key IT services, use the power of competition to control costs in a highly competitive
environment, and hold vendors and contractors accountable for providing consistently excellent
services.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$835.1) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
EPM-154
-------
• (-$3,150.0) This change reflects the Agency working to streamline IT consolidation. This
reduction is an aggregate estimate. The final distribution by program will be determined
when the Network Optimization Project is completed.
• (-$3,000.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained through expanded use of electronic
tool sets and integrated small systems.
• (-$473.3) This reduction reflects the continued shift away from building infrastructure
and toward adding data flows and Web services.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD & DAA; TSCA; FIFRA;
FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA;
FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA.
EPM-155
-------
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
EPM-156
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$4,289.0
$4,289.0
33.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$4,860.9
$4,860.9
34.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,260.0
$5,260.0
34.7
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$399.1
$399.1
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program provides support to EPA's Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and 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 2008 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 issues 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 to
appeal these decisions within the Agency is conferred by various statutes, regulations and
constitutional due process rights. The 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 this 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-157
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$558.9) This reflects a net increase of an increase for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE.
• (-$159.8) This decrease represents anticipated savings accomplished through more
efficient management and administrative practices, as well as other IT and
telecommunication changes that reflect more economically efficient resource utilization.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; FIFRA; CWA; CAA; TSCA; RCRA; SOW A; EPCRA; as provided in Appropriations
Act funding.
EPM-158
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$1,004.4
$559.4
$1,563.8
8.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,229.8
$887.2
$2,117.0
7.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,175.0
$837.0
$2,012.0
7.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($54.8)
($50.2)
($105.0)
-0.3
Program Project Description:
The Agency's General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices will provide environmental
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Agency will provide conflict prevention and 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 strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$56.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
EPM-159
-------
• (+$ 1.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
EPM-160
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$10,674.8
$10,674.8
64.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$11,053. 7
$11,053.7
71.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$11,240.0
$11,240.0
70.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$186.3
$186.3
-1.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Civil Rights activities provide policy direction and guidance on equal employment
opportunity, civil rights, affirmative employment and diversity issues for the Agency's program
offices, Regional Offices and laboratories. Programs include Title VI compliance and review;
intake and processing of complaints of discrimination 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 on ageism and sexual orientation. Program functions include
accountability for 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, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations, and equal employment initiatives, and upholds
the civil rights of EPA employees and prospective employees as required by Federal statutes and
Executive Orders.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008 EPA expects to conduct compliance reviews of five recipients of EPA financial
assistance. The Civil Rights External Compliance Program also expects to improve its
processing of external complaints. The Agency will:
• Work with the U.S. Department of Justice on the development of non-discrimination
regulations, guidance, or findings of discrimination, and the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services on issues regarding age discrimination, the U.S. Department of Education
on issues regarding discrimination on the basis of sex, and other Federal agencies that may
simultaneously receive discrimination complaints from the same complainant regarding a
particular recipient agency.
EPM-161
-------
• Work to reduce 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 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 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 strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
EPM-162
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$186.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$0.4) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
CRA VII, as amended; FWPCA amended; 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; ADA as amended; OWE PA as amended; ADEA 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-163
-------
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 2006
Actuals
535,237.7
$624.6
$35,862.3
238.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
537,525.5
$690.8
$38,216.3
249.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,366.0
$606.0
$39,972.0
247.2
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,840.5
($84.8)
$1,755.7
-2.6
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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,845.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$5.0) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (+$0.5) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
EPM-164
-------
• (-2.1 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
EPM-165
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$13,454.0
$13,454.0
84.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$13,465.9
$13,465.9
85.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$13,986.0
$13,986.0
85.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$520.1
$520.1
-0.6
Program Project Description:
The General Counsel and the Regional Counsel Offices provide legal representational services,
legal counseling and legal support for all activities necessary for the operation of the Agency.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$519.9) This reflects increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$0.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
EPM-166
-------
• (-0.6 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
EPM-167
-------
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 2006
Actuals
53,772.5
$3,772.5
2.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,520.7
$3,520.7
3.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,574.0
$3,574.0
3.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$53.3
$53.3
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, as well as
that required for laboratory quality assurance and quality control. Regional laboratories provide
essential expertise in ambient air monitoring, analytical pollution prevention, and environmental
biology, microbiology, and chemistry. Centers of Applied Science for specialty work have been
established in these areas as well. In recent years, EPA has made significant strides toward
improving data collection and analytical capacity to strengthen science based decision making.
Funding for necessary equipment is essential for continued progress.
RS&T activities support all of the Agency's national programs and goals, especially
enforcement, by supplying ongoing laboratory analysis, field sampling support, and Agency
efforts to build Tribal capacity for environmental monitoring and assessment. The RS&T
program provides in-house expertise and technical capabilities in the generation of data for
Agency decisions. RS&T organizations support the development of critical and timely
environmental data and data review activities in emerging situations.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, RS&T 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. Direct laboratory support
also increases efficiencies in Regional program management and implementation.
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,
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,
EPM-168
-------
including those related to Homeland Security, 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 cleanup procedures.
The Agency recognizes the value of accredited labs and continues to work toward the
accreditation of all of its labs. The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation
Conference/Program (NELAC/NELAP) ensures 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. Regional laboratories will sustain existing accreditations or seek accreditation,
according to their approved Implementation Plan under the Agency's Laboratory Competency
Policy, established in 2004, that requires all Agency laboratories to seek accreditation or
equivalent external assessments, if no suitable accreditation program is available (such as for
research activities.) The implementation of this policy is consistent with the closure of the
Agency's related 2004 FMFIA weakness.
The Regional laboratories contribute to various aspects of the Agency's PART measures in each
of the major Agency programs. The Civil and Criminal Enforcement PART measures are
supported through significant technical and analytical activities for civil enforcement cases
including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program. The laboratories
analyze samples associated with a variety of activities including unpermitted discharges, illegal
storage of hazardous wastes, and illegal dumping. Resultant data are then used by the Agency's
Criminal Investigation Division and by Assistant U.S. Attorneys to support prosecution cases.
Laboratory equipment such as Standard Reference Photometers is used to ensure that the
national network of ozone ambient monitors is accurately measuring ozone concentrations in
support of the Mobile Source and Air Toxics PART 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 strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$53.9) This increase is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a recalculation of base workforce costs.
• (-$0.6) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; CAA; TSCA; CERCLA; SOW A; PPA; RCRA; FIFRA.
EPM-169
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$22,671.1
$22,671.1
115.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,853.6
$25,853.6
116.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$23,866.0
$23,866.0
106.7
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($1,987.6)
($1,987.6)
-10.0
Program Project Description:
Innovation, new ideas and creative approaches are critical to continued environmental progress
and to building the next generation of environmental protection - one that focuses on results and
less on process; emphasizes environmental protection, not just pollution control; and takes a
comprehensive rather than piecemeal approach to environmental problem solving that will lead
to sustainable outcomes. Increasingly complex environmental problems - such as poor water
quality, increasing urban smog, and the need for cost effective solutions to national water
infrastructure issues — call for EPA to find new ways to leverage partnership opportunities with
states, local communities, and businesses to produce better environmental results at lower costs.
Through public recognition, incentives and help in overcoming regulatory barriers, promotes
environmental stewardship in all parts of society, encouraging and enabling companies,
communities, individuals, and other governmental organizations to actively take responsibility
for their environmental footprint and commit to improving environmental quality and achieving
sustainable results. The Agency also supports and encourages efforts to improve environmental
performance "beyond compliance" with regulatory requirements as a means to achieve long-
term, system-wide environmental protection goals. Through regulatory innovation, EPA is
establishing the building blocks for a future, more effective system of environmental protection.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA's Regulatory Innovation activities will include:
National Environmental Performance Track: Performance Track recognizes and encourages
private and public facilities that demonstrate strong environmental performance, beyond current
requirements. In FY2008, the program will focus on meeting its three year leadership goal of
reaching 500 members; continue to implement meaningful incentives that encourage facilities to
reach higher levels of environmental performance while more effectively utilizing limited
agency resources to carry out it mission; and enhance partnerships with other agencies, states,
EPM-170
-------
and NGOs. During FY 2008, the Performance Track program will improve program reporting,
develop and implement national and regional challenge commitments, and leverage state
environmental leadership programs by aligning Performance Track with 20 state 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, the
Agency will work with industry leaders in "lean manufacturing" to integrate environmental
improvements and enhance business efficiency and competitiveness; and encourage industrial
ecology and sustainable development.
State Innovation Grants (SIG): These competitive grants provide resources to assist states in
implementing system-wide innovative environmental protection strategies that are transferable to
other states. Examples include the establishment of recognition programs for environmental
leaders, promotion of environmental management systems, and implementation of the
Environmental Results Program model. The model is an integrated system of multi-media, plain
English compliance assistance, self-certification, and statistically-based performance
measurement that helps small business sectors improve environmental performance and creates
the means for significantly more efficient oversight. In FY 2008, EPA anticipates making up to
eight awards. Since 2002, EPA has supported 29 projects through the SIG program.
Environmental Management Systems (EMS) are internal decisional tools used by business and
industry to identify their "environmental footprint," and to reduce their environmental impacts
while increasing operating efficiency. EPA will continue to provide leadership and coordination
with other agencies, states and industry on promoting the widespread 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. EPA will also create national
EMS implementation programs in all participating sectors.
Innovative Pilot Testing: While SIGs are a primary mechanism for scaling up strategic
innovations, pilot testing of promising new ideas is conducted through a variety of additional
mechanisms. Examples of these additional mechanisms include organizing the development and
issuance of flexible air permit (in partnership with EPA's Air and Radiation program and
Performance Track); providing technical assistance and information to states that are adopting,
or considering, the Environmental Results Program as a means of regulating small sources;
providing a forum for information-sharing among states experimenting with the use of
environmental management systems (EMSs) in permits; and providing technical assistance to the
states in evaluating the results of those experiments. In addition, implementation of legacy pilots
under Project XL and the Joint Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation with states
continues.
The Sector Strategies Program promotes widespread improvement in environmental
performance, with reduced administrative burden, in twelve manufacturing and service sectors:
agribusiness, cement manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, colleges and universities,
construction, forest products, iron and steel manufacturing, metal casting, metal finishing, paint
and coatings, ports, and shipbuilding. Stakeholders will continue to work collaboratively to
address performance barriers and prompt industry stewardship initiatives, such as the National
EPM-171
-------
Mercury Switch Removal Program that was launched in 2006. The program will continue to
focus on tracking sector-wide performance trends. In FY 2008, EPA will expand its use of this
multi-media program by working with more sectors, enhancing sector performance metrics,
addressing priority issues such as energy production and efficiency, and developing more
performance-based environmental protection strategies.
Program Evaluation and Performance Management: Program evaluation helps to assess whether
program outputs are leading to desired outcomes and to promoting continuous program
improvement. Through an annual Program Evaluation Competition, managed in partnership
with the Agency's Accountability program, resources will be provided to EPA programs and
Regional offices in FY 2008 to conduct evaluations of priority programs. Specific consideration
is given to evaluations that further Government Performance and Results Act, Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART), and innovation priorities. Program evaluation and
performance measurement capacity are also built through performance management training
provided to EPA staff and managers.
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 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.
Environmental Stewardship: In 2008, EPA will continue activities that more fully engage all
parts of society (businesses, communities, all levels of governments, and individuals) in actions
that improve environmental quality and achieve sustainable results. As a follow-up to the White
House Conference on Cooperative Conservation, EPA has overall Federal leadership for 1)
continued assessment of legal authorities that hinder collaborative approaches, 2) active use of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act to gain multi-stakeholder consensus on controversial
issues, and 3) improved ways to engage the public in controversial and complex environmental
issues that need resolution in a geographic area. EPA plans to continue to improve management
of its partnership programs through technical support, training and skill building around program
design, measurement and evaluation. Additional support will be provided to Agency
stewardship priorities - for design and operation of site-specific projects in the regions, and for
incorporation in national program policies.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
75% of innovation
projects completed
under the State
Innovation Grants
program will achieve,
on average, 8% or
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
75
Units
Percentage
EPM-172
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
greater improvement in
environmental results
for sectors and
facilities involved, or
5 % or greater
improvement in cost-
effectiveness and
efficiency
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce water use at
Performance Track
facilities.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
3,900,000,000
Units
Gallons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce hazardous
materials use at
Performance Track
facilities.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
10,000
Units
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce production of
greenhouse gases at
Performance Track
facilities.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
175,000
Units
MTCO2E
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce toxic releases
to water at
Performance Track
facilities.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
220
Units
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce combined
NOx, SOx, VOC and
PM emissions at
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
4,000
Units
Tons
EPM-173
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
Performance Track
facilities.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
* Performance Track facilities collectively will meet 3 of the 5 annual performance improvement
targets for reducing, on a normalized basis, water use, hazardous materials use, production of
greenhouse gases, toxic discharges to water and combined NOx, SOx, VOC and PM emissions
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$432.8) 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.
• (-$1,554.8) This change reflects the integration of regulatory innovation and other
collaborative partnerships with external stakeholders into existing programs throughout
the Agency. In FY 2008, the Agency will also scale back its pilot testing by integrating
regulatory efforts with other program projects. .
• (-10.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The reduction will scale
back EPA's outreach efforts to government and industry through Performance Track,
Environmental Management Systems, Smart Growth and Cooperative Conservation
programs.
Statutory Authority:
As provided in Annual Appropriations Acts; CWA, Section 104(b)(3); CAA, Section 104(b)(3).
EPM-174
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$16,592. 7
$16,592.7
93.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$17,554.8
$17,554.8
103.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$20,104.0
$20,104.0
104.2
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$2,549.2
$2,549.2
1.0
Program Project Description:
To ensure that the Administrator and other senior EPA leaders have sound analyses for decision-
making, this program is designed to strengthen EPA's policy analysis of key regulatory actions,
including underlying economic analyses, and maintain and manage Agencywide information
technology systems to support EPA's regulatory processes. The Regulatory and Economic
program works to fill gaps in EPA's ability to quantify the benefits of environmental regulations
and policies. 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. 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 regulatory and policy
development processes.
Objectives of the program include: 1) advancing the theory and practice of quality economics; 2)
promoting policy analysis and risk analysis within the Agency; 3) providing information on the
full societal impacts of reducing environmental risks, including the costs and benefits of
regulatory options; 4) supporting the development of regulatory and policy alternatives,
especially economic incentives as an environmental management tool; 5) confirming and
maintaining the accuracy and consistency of EPA's economic analyses; and 6) promoting the use
of economic and regulatory analysis to facilitate planning and management throughout the
Agency. The program also ensures implementation of related Executive Orders.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Program activities planned for FY 2008 include:
EPM-175
-------
• 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, as called for in EPA's Ecological
Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan1. The Agency also will continue to establish effective
management systems in order to improve the quality and consistency of EPA's economic
and risk assessment studies.
• Continue support for data collection and dissemination of information on the economic
benefits, costs and impacts of environmental regulations, including pollution abatement
and control expenditures by US manufacturing industries.2
• 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). EPA will continue to review and revise its own economic guidelines so that they
remain current with advancements and reflect best practices in the profession.3
• Continue to organize workshops on priority economic and environmental policy issues,
i.e., benefits valuation, market mechanisms and incentives, and treatment of uncertainties
in risk and economic analyses.4
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,017.2) This increase is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a recalculation of base workforce costs.
• (+$1,070.8) This increase is the result of the transfer of the Office of Research and
Development's Research: Economics and Decision Science (EDS) program, including
3.0 FTE and associated payroll into the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation's
(OPEI) Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis program. Under the new
oversight of OPEI, EDS research will be directed at critical applied research needs of
EPA. The selection of research areas to be funded will draw on EPA's Environmental
1 Please refer to: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/EcologBenefitsPlan.html
2 Please refer to: http://www.census.gov/econ/overview/mullOO.html
3 Please refer to: http://vosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html:
4 For more information on these workshops, please refer to:
http://vosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/WorkshopSeries.html.
EPM-176
-------
Economics Research Strategy5, and will continue to use a collaborative process with
EPA's media and research offices to ensure research priorities are addressed, and the
products of the research continue to be relevant, rigorous and are high quality.
• (+$429.2) This represents payroll resources for 3.0 FTE transferred from the Office of
Research and Development's Research: Economics and Decision Science (EDS)
program.
• (+$32.0) This increase will support development and review of the Agency's economic
and risk analyses, and improvement of the Agency's internal regulation development
tracking system.
• (+3.0 FTE) This increase represents the transfer of 3.0 FTE from the Office of Research
and Development's Research: Economics and Decision Science (EDS) program.
• (-2.0 FTE) This reduction will eliminate part-time positions supporting economic benefit-
cost evaluations of new and existing EPA programs and regulations. The office will
utilize alternative approaches to support evaluations, such as additional training for
existing staff.
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.
' Please refer to: http://vosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/EEResearchStrategv.html
EPM-177
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$4,555. 8
$4,555.8
25.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$4,615.7
$4,615.7
22.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,790.0
$4,790.0
22.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$174.3
$174.3
0.0
Program Project Description:
To ensure that EPA's scientific and technical products are of the highest quality, the Agency's
Science Advisory Board (SAB) provides independent, in-depth peer review of EPA's analyses
and methods. The board draws on a balanced range of non-EPA scientists and technical
specialists from academia, communities, states, independent research institutions, and industry.
This program provides administrative support to the SAB and two other statutorily mandated
chartered Federal Advisory Committees, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and the
Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis. 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.1
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the SAB will provide scientific and technical advice on nearly 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. The
Agency brings all of its important scientific products to the Board as well as emerging and
challenging research issues.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives.
performance measures for this specific program project.
Currently, there are no
1 Please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/sab/.
EPM-178
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$428.0) This increase is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a recalculation of base workforce costs.
• (-$253.7) This decrease represents anticipated savings accomplished through more
efficient management and administrative practices, as well as other IT and
telecommunication changes that reflect more economically efficient resource utilization.
Statutory Authority:
ERDDAA; 42 U.S.C. § 4365; FACA, 5 U.S.C. App. C; CAA Amendments of 1977; 42 U.S.C.
7409(d)(2); CAA Amendments of 1990; 42 U.S.C. 7612.
EPM-179
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
EPM-180
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$23,040.8
$357.3
$19,577.1
$42,975.2
351.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,418.3
$360.8
$23,514.3
$49,293.4
357.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,992.0
$165.0
$24,645.0
$54,802.0
357.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$4,573.7
($195.8)
$1,130.7
$5,508.6
0.1
Program Project Description:
EPM resources in this program support contract and acquisition management activities at
Headquarters, Regional Offices, Research Triangle Park and Cincinnati offices. Sound contract
management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs. 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to implement its new acquisition system, as the current
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; 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 (E-Gov) requirements,
and the needs of Agency personnel resulting in more efficient process implementation. 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.
In addition, the Agency will utilize the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE), an E-Gov
initiative to create a secure business model that facilitates and supports cost-effective acquisition
of goods and services by Federal agencies, while eliminating inefficiencies in the current
acquisition environment.
EPM-181
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,100.0) This change reflects an increase, over the FY 2007 increase, to support
development and deployment of the Agency's new Acquisition Management System. An
increase totaling of $3 million is requested ($2.1 million EPM and $900 thousand
Superfund) for FY 2008. 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 General Services Administration's Integrated Acquisition
Environment.
• (+$1,231.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1,260.0) This change provides extramural funding to support Defense Contract Audit
Agency contract services and oversight functions transferred from the Office of the
Inspector General. The total provided for this activity is $1.8 million, of which $540
thousand is in Superfund Acquisition Management.
• (-$53.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (+$34.0) This increase provides additional funding to support EPA's Acquisition E-
Government initiative.
• (+$1.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-2.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities in grants management. These
reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in
carrying out its programs.
• (+3.0 FTE) This provides 3.0 FTE to support Defense Contract Audit Agency contract
services and oversight functions transferred from the Office of the Inspector General.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; annual Appropriations Acts; FAR.
EPM-182
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$70,768.6
$760.9
$21,783.7
$93,313.2
515.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$83,548.1
$1,014.8
$25,540.8
$110,103.7
537.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$74,960.0
$1,102.0
$24,306.0
$100,368.0
530.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($8,588.1)
$87.2
($1,234.8)
($9,735.7)
-7.7
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 services, such
as technical assistance, training, expert advice, finance education, and full cost pricing analysis
to states, local communities and small businesses.
(Refer to http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/functions.htm for additional information).
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue efforts to modernize the Agency's financial systems and business processes.
Beginning in FY 2007 and continuing through 2008 and into FY 2009, the Agency will replace
its legacy accounting system and related modules with a new system certified to meet the latest
government accounting standards. This extensive modernization effort will ensure cost, and
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 (PMA) scorecard
by providing more accessible data to support accountability, cost accounting, budget and
performance integration, and management decision-making.
EPM-183
-------
In FY 2008, 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
PMA initiatives for improved financial performance.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,857.8) 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.
• (+$500.8) This reflects an increase for the Agency's administrative fees associated with
employee participation in the Federal Flexible Spending Account program. Section 1127
of the National Defense Authorization Act requires agencies to pay administrative fees
for their employees who elect to participate in the Federal Flexible Spending Account
programs. This increase reflects increased participation in the program by Agency
employees.
• (-$7,200.0) The funding level required for the Financial Replacement System (FinRS)
Capital Investment is expected to be lower in FY 2008, the second year of system
implementation. Final costs will not be known until after the contract procurement is
completed.
• (-$10.0) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (+$50.0) This increase reflects revised estimated costs for migration to e-Travel.
• (-$73.9) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (+$0.7) This increase reflects a shift from Superfund to adjust regional workforce support
resource allocation.
• (+$2.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-6.6 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction is the result
of ongoing efforts to streamline operations and identify financial, budgeting, and
accountability processes. These reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize
efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
EPM-184
-------
Statutory Authority:
Annual Appropriations Act; CCA; CERCLA; CSA; E-Government Act of 2002; EFOIA; EPA's
Environmental Statutes, and the FGCAA; FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations, contract law
and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40 CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46, 47); FMFIA(1982);
FOIA; GMRA(1994); IPIA; IGA of 1978 and Amendments of 1988; PRA; PR; CFOA (1990);
GPRA (1993); The Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5, USC; National Defense Authorization
Act.
EPM-185
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$336,980.6
$8,841.7
$30,871.3
$769.6
$366.1
$66,365.6
$444494.9
375.1
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 2008
Pres Bud
$303,728.0
$73,859.0
$26,931.0
$901.0
$490.0
$74,956.0
$480,865.0
415.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$8,967.9
$3,619.5
($1,499.9)
($15.8)
($9.3)
$1,011.3
$12,073.7
-22.7
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 at EPA. These include health and safety, environmental
compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness/wellness and safety, and
environmental management functions. 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 2008 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) 131491 and 131232, Greening the Government through
1 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3149.htm
2 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3123.htm
EPM-186
-------
Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency and Greening the Government through Efficient
Energy Management respectively. 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 rated products and
buildings.
EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by EO 13ISO3 Federal
Workforce Transportation. EPA will continue the implementation of the Safety and Health
Management Systems to ensure a safe working environment.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in energy
consumption.
FY 2006
Actual
2
FY 2006
Target
2
FY 2007
Target
5
FY 2008
Target
8
Units
Percent
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$812.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$872.6) Provides additional resources for increases in transit subsidy costs.
• (+$6,843.6) Provides additional resources for increases in rent costs.
• (+$583.1) Provides additional resources for increases in utility costs.
• (-$79.2) This decrease represents projected security cost savings in FY 2008.
• (+$326.9) Provides additional resources for increases in Regional moves.
• (+$8.8) Provides additional resources for increases in Regional laboratory operations
costs.
• (-$60.0) This change reflects the elimination of EPA's Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, annual physical examination program as part of a management strategy that
will help us better align resources and Agency priorities.
• (+$541.6) Provides additional resources to cover basic facilities management services in
EPA's ten Regional offices. These additional resources will go towards supporting
environmental compliance, occupational health and safety and fitness/wellness.
1 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
EPM-187
-------
• (-$658.3) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$224.0) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (-21.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. Additional reductions
were taken by the Regional offices as a means to consolidate inefficiencies associated
with facilities infrastructure and operations, and to redistribute resources to those
programs that would best help them meet EPA's goals. These reductions will not impede
Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
FPASA; PBA; Annual Appropriations Acts; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988;
Executive Orders 10577 and 12598; United States Marshals Service Vulnerability Assessment of
Federal Facilities; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
EPM-188
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$22,280.0
$2,752.7
$25,032.7
186.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$21,847.0
$2,920.8
$24,767.8
163.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$23,439.0
$3,049.0
$26,488.0
177.5
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,592.0
$128.2
$1,720.2
14.2
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 Regional offices. The key components of this program are ensuring that EPA's
management of grants and lAGs 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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.1 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 level 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.
1 US EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-R-03-001, April 2003,
http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/finalreport.pdf.
EPM-189
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Change from the FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,295.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$65.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$60.5) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT systems.
• (+$422.5) This increase provides FY 2008 funding at the appropriate level for two E-
Government initiatives: Grants.Gov, a system that streamlines and automates the grant
and interagency agreement processes within EPA, and Grants Line of Business, a
government-wide solution to support end-to-end grants management activities that
promote citizen access, customer service, and agency financial and technical stewardship.
• (+12.7 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The increase is also
attributed to the need to strengthen accountability in the grants process, and implement
new grants management policies in EPA's Regional Offices.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; FGCAA; Section 40 CFR Parts 30,
31,35, 40, 45, 46, and 47.
EPM-190
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$42,966.8
$3.0
$5,282.1
$48,251.9
323.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$40,202.5
$3.0
$5,270.2
$45,475.7
297.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$40,175.0
$3.0
$5,036.0
$45,214.0
296.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($27.5)
$0.0
($234.2)
($261.7)
-1.3
Program Project Description:
EPM 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 Agencywide 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 2008 Activities and Highlights:
EPA is committed to fully implementing Investing in Our People II, EPA 's Strategy for Human
Capital *, which was issued in December 2003 and updated in 2005. As result of that review,
the desired outcomes for each strategy were strengthened to focus on measurable results. In FY
2008, the Agency will continue its efforts to implement a Workforce Planning System:
• Closing competency gaps for Toxicology, Information Technology, Human Resources,
Grant and Contract specialist positions, as well as leadership positions throughout the
Agency.
• Finalizing a Strategic Recruitment Plan, significantly reducing the time to hire for senior
executives, and reducing the overall number of vacancies for non-SES positions
processed beyond 45 days.
• Implementing innovative recruitment and hiring flexibilities that address personnel
shortages in mission-critical occupations.
' US EPA, Investing in Our People II, EPA's Strategy for Human Capital. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oarm/strategv.pdf
EPM-191
-------
EPA also will continue to streamline human resources management by employing the E-
Government initiative, Human Resources Line of Business (HR LoB). HR LoB offers
government-wide, cost effective, standardized and interoperable HR solutions while providing
core functionality to support the strategic management of Human Capital.
In accordance with OMB Circular A-76 Implementation of the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform Act of 19982 (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. Each of these activities will also support the
Agency's President's Management Agenda goals and objectives.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent increase in the
number of non-SES
managers and
supervisors at the
targeted proficiency
level (intermediate) for
"Interpersonal Skills
and Oral
Communication" .
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
25
FY 2008
Target
10
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent increase in the
number of non-SES
managers and
supervisors at the
targeted proficiency
level (advanced) for
"Interpersonal Skills
and Oral
Communication" .
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
15
FY 2008
Target
15
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Average time to hire
non-SES positions
from date vacancy
closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in
working days.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
45
FY 2008
Target
45
Units
Days
: Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/fair2002notice4.html
EPM-192
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
For SES positions, the
average time from date
vacancy closes to date
offer is extended,
expressed in working
days.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
90
FY 2008
Target
73
Units
Days
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,237.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1,499.2) This change reflects a decrease in EPA's Human Capital program and the
EPA Intern Program and is part of a management strategy that will help us better align
resources and Agency priorities.
• (-$5.1) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT systems.
• (-$138.3) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (+$350.0) This change reflects an increase for Executive Leadership Development
functions. This program prepares the Agency's executive leaders to better manage the
environmental challenges of the 21st century, by supporting the Human Capital goals for
executive leadership competencies and succession planning.
• (+$27.5) This provides funding for the Human Resources Line of Business E-
Government initiative, a Government-wide, modern, cost effective, standardized, and
interoperable Human Resource (HR) solution that provides common core functionality to
support the strategic management of Human Capital.
• (+3.0 FTE) This change reflects a staffing increase for Executive Leadership
Development functions. This program prepares the Agency's executive leaders to better
manage the environmental challenges of the 21st century, by supporting the Human
Capital goals for executive leadership competencies and succession planning.
• (-4.3 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities, including reductions taken by
Regional offices as a means to consolidate Human Resources Management functions.
EPM-193
-------
These reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and
effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
Title V United States Code.
EPM-194
-------
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
EPM-195
-------
Pesticides: Field Programs
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Human Health
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$24,627.9
$24,627.9
118.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$24,926.3
$24,926.3
122.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($24,926.3)
($24,926.3)
-122.5
Program Project Description:
The Pesticides Field Program is one of the main 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.
Beginning in FY 2008, these resources will be aligned according to descriptions that better
reflect the Agency's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) mandate and
align with the Agency Strategic Plan. These description titles are: Protect Human Health from
Pesticide Risk, Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources previously presented in this program project are now presented within three new
program projects and are distributed as outlined in the Explanation of Change section below.
Please see the descriptions for program projects: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk,
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability for
detailed descriptions of the FY 2008 activities and performance.
Performance Targets:
Please see the narratives for program projects: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk,
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability for
detailed descriptions of the FY 2008 activities and performance.
EPM-196
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$11,468.3 7-68.6 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Protect
Human Health from Pesticide Risk program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Field program's base resources and does not reflect a reduction in that
program's resources.
• (-$8,973.5/-44.1 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Protect
the Environment from Pesticide Risk program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Field program's base resources and does not reflect a reduction in that
program's resources.
• (-$4,484.5 7-9.8 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Realize
the Value of Pesticide Availability program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Field program's base resources and does not reflect a reduction in that
program's resources.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; ESA; and FQPA.
EPM-197
-------
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$39,406.5
$2,631.7
$42,038.2
380.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$39,767.6
$2,766.1
$42,533.7
327.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($39, 767.6)
($2,766.1)
($42,533.7)
-327.8
Program Project Description:
EPA's Pesticide Registration Program registers pesticides for use, ensuring they satisfy a
reasonable certainty of no harm to human health and the environment. The Agency registers
new pesticides only after extensive review and evaluation of studies and data on human health
and ecological effects.1 As part of the process, the Agency analyzes data and, 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 that 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.
Beginning in FY 2008, these resources will be aligned according to descriptions that better
reflect the Agency's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) mandate and
align with the Agency Strategic Plan. These description titles are: Protect Human Health from
Pesticide Risk, Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources previously presented in this program project are now presented within three new
program projects and are distributed as outlined in the Explanation of Change section below.
Please see the descriptions for program projects: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk,
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability for
detailed descriptions of the FY 2008 activities and performance.
'FIFRA Sec 3; FIFRA Sec 4 (i) (5)
EPM-198
-------
Performance Targets:
Please see the narratives for program projects: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk,
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability for
detailed descriptions of the FY 2008 activities and performance.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$22,269.9 /-175.0 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Protect
Human Health from Pesticide Risk program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Registration program's base resources and does not reflect a change in
program resources, activities, or activity levels from what would have otherwise been
presented under this program project.
• (-$14,009.3 1-110.4 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides:
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk program. This is the outgoing transfer from
the Pesticides: Registration program's base resources and does not reflect a change in
program resources, activities, or activity levels from what would have otherwise been
presented under this program project.
• (-$3,488.4 1-21.1 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Realize
the Value of Pesticide Availability program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Registration program's base resources and does not reflect a change in
program resources, activities, or activity levels from what would have otherwise been
presented under this program project.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA; ESA.
EPM-199
-------
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$54,507.5
$2,347.0
$56,854.5
460.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$51,814.6
$2,820.4
$54,635.0
458.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($51,814.6)
($2,820.4)
($54,635.0)
-458.7
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 to provide benefits such as public health safety,
safe and abundant food, worker safety, and protection of land and other media from pesticide
contamination. These means include regulatory actions (i.e., risk mitigation measures such as
label changes and modifications in application of the pesticide), voluntary actions encouraged
through partnerships, education, and outreach.
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) also requires that EPA establish a process for
periodic review of pesticide registrations every 15 years, which will replace the Reregistration
process. 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 initiated implementation of this program in FY 2007, and is
increasing efforts in FY 2008. EPA worked with stakeholders to develop a pilot program which
helped to define the program parameters for the Registration Review program.
Beginning in FY 2008, these resources will be aligned according to descriptions that better
reflect the Agency's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) mandate and
align with the Agency Strategic Plan. These description titles are: Protect Human Health from
Pesticide Risk, Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide
Availability.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Resources previously presented in this program project are now presented within three new
program projects and are distributed as outlined in the Explanation of Change section below.
Please see the descriptions for program projects: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk,
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability for
detailed descriptions of the FY 2008 activities and performance.
EPM-200
-------
Performance Targets:
Please see the narratives for program projects: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk,
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, and Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability for
detailed descriptions of the FY 2008 activities and performance.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$29,016.2 /-230.3 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Protect
Human Health from Pesticide Risk program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Review/Reregi strati on program's base resources and does not reflect a change
in program resources, activities, or activity levels from what would have otherwise been
presented under this program project.
• (-$18,653.2 1-159.0 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides:
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk program. This is the outgoing transfer from
the Pesticides: Review/Reregi strati on program's base resources and does not reflect a
change in program resources, activities, or activity levels from what would have
otherwise been presented under this program project.
• (-$4,145.2 7-52.4 FTE) This represents a transfer of resources to the Pesticides: Realize
the Value of Pesticide Availability program. This is the outgoing transfer from the
Pesticides: Review/Reregi strati on program's base resources and does not reflect a change
in program resources, activities, or activity levels from what would have otherwise been
presented under this program project.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA.
EPM-201
-------
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$62,514.0
$3,294.0
$65,808.0
488.5
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$62,514.0
$3,294.0
$65,808.0
488.5
Program Project Description:
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section 3(c)(5), states that the
Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with
labeling and common practices, the product "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment." Further, FIFRA defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment" as "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment." EPA has restructured its
program projects in order to align resource requests and resource presentation with the program's
mandate. This program project 1) links resources with FIFRA's mandate to protect human
health from unreasonable pesticide risks, 2) aligns with EPA's 2006-2011 Agency Strategic Plan,
and 3) comprises the human health activities formerly described in the Pesticides: Field
Programs, Pesticides: Review/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides and Pesticides: Registration
of New Pesticides program projects, as they relate to human health.
EPA's Pesticide program evaluates, assesses and reviews new pesticides before they reach the
market and ensures that pesticides already in commerce are safe.1 Under FIFRA, the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and the Food Quality Act of 1996 that amended
FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA is responsible for registration and reregi strati on of pesticides to protect
consumers, pesticide users, workers who may be exposed to pesticides, children, and other
sensitive populations. To make registration and reregi strati on decisions, EPA must balance the
risks and benefits of using the pesticide. In establishing tolerances, or the maximum allowable
pesticide residues on food or feed, EPA must consider cumulative and aggregate risks and ensure
additional protection for children.
EPA began promoting reduced risk pesticides in 1995 by giving registration priority to pesticides
that will have low impact on human health; low toxicity to non-target birds, fish, and plants; low
potential for contaminating ground water; lower use rates; low pest resistance potential; and that
also comport with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approaches.2 Several countries and
1 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides internet site: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/. Washington,
DC: Office of Pesticide Programs.
2 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Health and Safety, Reducing Pesticide Risk internet site:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/reducing.htm.
EPM-202
-------
international organizations have instituted programs to facilitate registering reduced risk
pesticides. EPA works with the international scientific community and Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries to register 12 new reduced-
risk pesticides and to establish related tolerances (maximum residue limits). Through these
efforts, EPA can help to reduce risks to Americans from foods imported from other countries.
EPA's regional offices provide frontline risk management that ensures the decisions made during
EPA's registration and reregi strati on processes are implemented in pesticide use. An estimated
1.8 million agricultural workers could be exposed to pesticides, and millions of individuals use
pesticides in occupations such as lawn care, healthcare, food preparation, and landscape
maintenance.3 Each year, the risk assessments that EPA conducts yield extensive risk-
management requirements for hundreds of pesticides and uses. EPA continues to reduce the
number and severity of pesticide exposure incidents by promulgating regulations under the
Worker Protection Standard, training and certifying pesticide applicators, assessing and
managing risks, and developing effective communication and outreach programs
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
During 2008, EPA will continue to review and register new pesticides, new uses for existing
pesticides, and other registration requests in accordance with FQPA standards and Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) timeframes. EPA will continue to process these
registration requests, with special consideration given to susceptible populations, especially
children. Specifically, EPA will focus special attention on the foods commonly eaten by
children, to reduce pesticide exposure to children where the science identifies potential concerns.
Also, in 2008, EPA will continue to meet the 2008 FQPA/PRIA statutory deadlines for currently
registered pesticides by completing Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions (REDs) for the
remaining chemicals subject to reregi strati on. The Agency will continue to ramp-up the
Registration Review program and implement RED decisions.
In 2008, EPA will review 45 pesticides through the Registration Review program. As
Registration Review is implemented, EPA will continue to maintain the Agency's goal of
ensuring that pesticides in the marketplace meet the latest health and safety standards.
Registration review will operate continuously, encompassing all registered pesticides.
EPA will continue to address post-RED activities vital to effective "real world" implementation
of the RED requirements. These activities include reviewing product label amendments that
incorporate the mitigation from the REDs; publishing proposed and final product cancellations;
implementing memoranda of agreements designed to provide fast/effective risk reduction; and
approving product reregistrations. The Agency also will complete certain proposed and final
tolerance rulemakings to implement the changes in tolerances and revocations required in the
REDs. xhe end result of these activities is protecting human health by implementing statutes and
3 U.S. Department of Labor. March 2005. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001 -
2002. A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers, Research Report No. 9,
Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Programmatic Policy. Available on the
internet at: http://www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm.
EPM-203
-------
taking regulatory actions to ensure pesticides continue to be safe and available when used in
accordance with the label.
EPA staff will continue to provide locally based technical assistance and guidance to states and
Tribes on implementation of pesticide decisions. 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.
EPA will engage the public, the scientific community and other stakeholders in its policy
development and implementation to encourage a reasonable transition for farmers and others
from the older, more potentially hazardous pesticides to the newer pesticides that have been
registered using the latest available scientific information. The Agency will continue to update
the pesticide review and use policies to ensure compliance with the latest scientific methods.
EPA also will continue its emphasis on the registration of reduced risk pesticides, including
biopesticides, in order to provide farmers and other pesticide users with new alternatives. In FY
2008, the Agency, in collaboration with the United States Department of Agriculture, will
continue to work to ensure that minor use registrations receive appropriate support. EPA also
will ensure that needs are met for reduced risk pesticides for minor use crops.
Pesticide registration actions will continue to evaluate pesticide products before they enter the
market.4 EPA will review pesticide data and implement use restrictions and instructions needed
to ensure that pesticides used according to label directions will not result in unreasonable risk.
During its pre-market review, EPA will consider human health and environmental concerns as
well as the pesticide's potential benefits. Through Reregi strati on and the implementation of
Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions (REDs), EPA will continue to review existing registrations to
ensure they meet current scientific standards and address concerns identified after the original
registration.5 In addition, EPA initiated a new Registration Review program to review of
pesticide registrations once every 15 years to ensure that they meet the most current standards.
EPA will assist farmers and other pesticide users in learning about new, safer products and
methods of using existing products through workshops, demonstrations, small grants and
materials available on the web site and in print.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Incidents per 100,000
potential risk events in
population
occupationally exposed
to pesticides.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
<=3.5
Units
Incidents per
100 000
4 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Topical & Chemical Fact Sheets, Pesticide Registration
Program internet site: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/registration.htm.
5 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration internet site:
www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration.
EPM-204
-------
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Reduced cost per
pesticide occupational
incident avoided.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
2
FY 2008
Target
4
Units
Cum. Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent reduction in
concentrations of
pesticides detected in
general population.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
10
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Reduction
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent reduction in
moderate to severe
incidents for six
acutely toxic
agricultural pesticides
with the highest
incident rate.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
10
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Percent
Reduction
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of
agricultural acres
treated with reduced-
risk pesticides.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
17
FY 2007
Target
18
FY 2008
Target
18
Units
Percent Acre-
Treatments
Measures in the performance table that have "No Target Established" are reported on a bi-annual
basis and therefore, do not possess an FY 2008 target.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$29,016.2 \ +230.3 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides:
Re view/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides program's base resources, including payroll
and FTE, and does not reflect new resources, or program activities that would have been
presented under the previous program project structure.
• (+$22,269.9 \ +175.0 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides:
Registration of New Pesticides program's base resources and does not reflect new
EPM-205
-------
resources, or program activities that would have been presented under the previous
program project structure.
• (+$11,468.3 \ +68.6 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides: Field
Program's base resources and does not reflect new resources, or program activities that
would have been presented under the previous program project structure.
• (+$1,436.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$16.3) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including
international travel.
• (-$59.5) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT systems.
• (-$452.4) This change reflects a decrease to risk assessment contracts, statistical
analysis, and collaborative studies on occupational exposures for Reregi strati on actions.
This decrease may delay Reregistation Eligibility Decisions (REDs) and affects potential
outreach activities to states and Tribes including implementation of REDs,
implementation of ESA, safer alternatives for pest management, and Registration Review
communications. Reductions were used to fund higher priority activities such as
development and implementation of the lead rule.
• (-$328.3) This change reflects a savings from consolidation of education and outreach
resources. This reduction will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and
effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
• (-$820.7) This decrease results in reduced support to the states in implementing the
pesticides programs including the Worker Protection and Pesticides Certification
programs, Pesticides Environmental Stewardship, the Strategic Agricultural Initiative and
the Tribal program. Reductions were used to fund higher priority activities such as
development and implementation of the lead rule.
• (-3.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The decrease reflects
consolidation of education and outreach and reduced support for implementing pesticides
programs. These reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and
effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; ESA; and FQPA.
EPM-206
-------
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$41,750.0
$2,115.0
$43,865.0
320.5
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$41,750.0
$2,115.0
$43,865.0
320.5
Program Project Description:
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), section 3(c)(5), states that the
Administrator shall register a pesticide if it is determined that, when used in accordance with
labeling and common practices, the product "will not generally cause unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment." Further, FIFRA defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment" as "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment." EPA has restructured its
program projects in order to align resource requests and resource presentation with the program's
mandate. This program project 1) links resources with FIFRA's mandate to protect the
environment from unreasonable pesticide risks, 2) aligns with EPA's 2006-2011 Agency
Strategic Plan, and 3) comprises the environmental protection activities formerly described in the
Pesticides: Pesticides: Review/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides and the Pesticides:
Registration of New Pesticides program projects.
Along with assessing the risks that pesticides pose to human health, EPA conducts ecological
risk assessments to determine potential effects on plants, animals, and ecosystems. In addition to
assessing and addressing potential risks to ecosystems and plants and animals that are not targets
of the pesticide, the Agency has additional responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).1 Under FIFRA, EPA must determine that a pesticide is not likely to cause unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment, taking into account the beneficial uses of a product. To
ensure unreasonable risks are avoided, EPA may impose risk mitigation measures such as
modifying use rates or application methods, restricting uses, or denying uses. In some regulatory
decisions, EPA may determine that uncertainties in the risk determination need to be reduced and
may subsequently require monitoring of environmental conditions, such as effects on water
sources or the development and submission of additional laboratory or field study data by the
pesticide registrant.2
1 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 sections 7(a)l and 7 (a)2; Federal Agency Actions and Consultations, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)). Available at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act of 1973
internet site: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa.htnrfLnk07.
2 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. January 23, 2004. Section 3(a), Requirement of
Registration (7 U.S.C. 136a). Available online atwww.epa.gov/opp0001/regulating/fifra/pdf.
EPM-207
-------
Under ESA, EPA must ensure that pesticide regulatory decisions will not adversely modify
critical habitat or jeopardize the continued existence of species listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service as threatened or endangered. Given
approximately 600 active ingredients in more than 19,000 products—many of which have
multiple uses—and approximately 1,200 listed species with diverse biologically-attributed
habitat requirements and geographic range, this presents a great challenge. EPA works with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to establish an efficient
process for carrying out our ESA obligations.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, as a result of a lawsuit
filed against the Services, overturned the most critical aspects of EPA's initial attempt at
regulation, including EPA's authority to make certain determinations without further
consultation with the Services. EPA will continue to work with the Services to find efficiencies
and have made assessing potential risks to endangered species a priority. EPA has also instituted
processes to consider endangered species issues routinely in EPA reviews.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Reduced concentrations of pesticides in water sources indicate the efficacy of EPA's risk
assessment, management, mitigation, and communication activities. Using sampling data
collected under the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment
Program, EPA will monitor the impact of our regulatory decisions for four pesticides of
concern—diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion, and azinphos-methyl—and consider whether any
additional action is necessary.3 In FY 2008 the Agency will work with USGS to develop
sampling plans and refine goals, and we will ask USGS to add additional insecticides to
sampling protocols and establish baselines for newer products that are replacing
organophosphates, such as synthetic pyrethroids.
The water quality measure tracks reductions of concentrations for four organophosphate
insecticides that most consistently exceeded EPA's levels of concerns for aquatic ecosystems
during the last ten years of monitoring the US Geological Survey (National-Water-Quality
Assessment). EPA's goals for reducing the number of watersheds with exceedences for these
pesticides will be met through a combination of programmatic activities. Reregi strati on
decisions, and associated RED implementation, for these four compounds will result in lower use
rates and the elimination of certain uses that will directly contribute to reduced concentrations of
these materials in the nation's waters.
While the reregi strati on and RED implementation functions are a necessary aspect of meeting
EPA's goals, they are not sufficient in and of themselves. Without having alternative products to
these organophosphates available to the consumer, the means to reach the goal would be
significantly hampered. Consequently, the success of the registration program in ensuring lower
risk and the availability of efficacious alternative products, plays a large role in meeting the
environmental outcome of improved aquatic ecosystem protection. EPA will also continue to
3Gilliom, R.J., et al. 2006. The Quality of Our Nation's Waters: Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground
Water, 1992-2001. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1291. 171p. Available on the internet at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1291/.
EPM-208
-------
assist pesticide users in learning about new, safer products and methods of using existing
products through various means, including workshops, demonstrations, grants, printed materials
and the Internet.
Another program focus in FY 2008 will be providing for the continued protection of threatened
or endangered species from pesticide use, while minimizing regulatory burdens on pesticide
users. EPA will use sound science and best available data to assess the potential risk of pesticide
exposure to listed species and will continue efforts with partners and stakeholders to improve
complementary information and databases. As pesticides are reviewed throughout the course of
the Registration Review cycle, databases that describe the location and characteristics of species,
pesticides and crops will continually be refined with new information to help ensure consistent
consideration of endangered species.
EPA will continue to implement use limitations through appropriate label statements, referring
pesticide users to EPA-developed Endangered Species Protection Bulletins which are available
on the Internet via Bulletins Live! These bulletins will, as appropriate, contain maps of pesticide
use limitation areas necessary to ensure protection of listed species and, therefore, EPA's
compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Any such limitations on a pesticide's use will be
enforceable under the misuse provisions of FIFRA. Bulletins are a critical mechanism for
ensuring protection of endangered and threatened species from pesticide applications while
minimizing the burden on agriculture and other pesticide users by limiting pesticide use in the
smallest geographic area necessary to protect the species.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Cumulative percent of
Reregistration
Eligibility Decisions
Completed.
FY 2006
Actual
91
FY 2006
Target
93.5
FY 2007
Target
97
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
Decisions
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Reduction in time
required to issue
Reregistration
Eligibility Decisions.
FY 2006
Actual
62
FY 2006
Target
10
FY 2007
Target
40
FY 2008
Target
60
Units
Percent
Reduction
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Average cost and
average time to
produce or update an
Endangered Species
Bulletin.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
10
FY 2008
Target
19
Units
Percent
Reduction
EPM-209
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of urban
watersheds that
exceeds EPA aquatic
life benchmarks for
three key pesticides of
concern.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
25,25,30
Units
Percent
Some of the 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, 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.
EPA goals for 2008 through 2010 will be refined when the USGS plan is finalized in late FY
2007 as the USGS plan is, however, still under development. USGS is currently developing
sampling plans for 2008 through 2017. Current draft plans call for yearly monitoring in four
urban-dominated river/large stream watersheds and eight agricultural watersheds; bi-yearly
sampling in twelve additional urban-dominated streams and three agricultural dominated
watersheds; and sampling every four years in a second set of twelve urban-dominated stream
watersheds and a second set of 25 agricultural watersheds. The sampling frequency for these 28
urban sites and 36 agricultural sites will range from approximately 15 to 35 sites samples per
year based on the watershed land-use class.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$18,653.2 \ +159.0 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides:
Re view/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides program's base resources, including payroll
and FTE, and does not reflect new resources, or program activities that would have been
presented under the previous program project structure.
• (+$14,009.3 \ +110.4 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides:
Registration of New Pesticides program's base resources and does not reflect new
resources, or program activities that would have been presented under the previous
program project structure.
• (+$8,973.5 \ +44.1 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides: Field
Program's base resources and does not reflect new resources, or program activities that
would have been presented under the previous program project structure.
• (+$1,149.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
EPM-210
-------
• (-$5.0) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including
international travel.
• (-$18.5) This reflects a shift of resources to support emergency exemptions and related
food security activities.
• (-$272.7) This change reflects a decrease to risk assessment contracts that support
Reregi strati on actions and may delay Reregistation Eligibility Decisions (REDs). The
decrease affects potential outreach activities to states and Tribes including
implementation of REDs, implementation of ESA, safer alternatives for pest
management, and Registration Review communications. Reductions were used to fund
higher priority activities such as development and implementation of the lead rule.
• (-$211.1) This change reflects a savings from consolidation of education and outreach
resources.
• (-$527.6) This decrease results in reduced support to the states in implementing the
pesticides programs including the Worker Protection and Pesticides Certification
programs, Pesticides Environmental Stewardship, the Strategic Agricultural Initiative and
the Tribal program. This reduction will not impede Agency efforts to maximize
efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
• (-$1.0) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-4.6 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The decrease reflects
consolidation of education and outreach and reduced support for implementing pesticides
programs. These reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and
effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; ESA; and FQPA.
EPM-211
-------
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$12,114.0
$472.0
$12,586.0
90.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$12,114.0
$472.0
$12,586.0
90.4
Program Project Description:
Within the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the definition of
"unreasonable adverse effects on the environments" expands upon the concept of protecting
against unreasonable risks to man or the environment, by adding "taking into account the
economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide..." An
example of actions that lead to these societal benefits are exemptions granted under FIFRA
Section 18. In the event of an emergency, FIFRA Section 18 provides EPA the authority to
temporarily exempt certain pesticides uses from registration requirements. We must ensure that,
under the very limiting provisions of the exemption, such emergency uses will not present an
unreasonable risk to the environment. EPA's timely review of emergency exemptions has
avoided an estimated $1.5 billion in crop losses per year. In such cases, EPA's goal is to
complete the more detailed and comprehensive unreasonable risk review conducted for pesticide
registration within three years. This program project, which aligns with the 2006-2011 Agency
Strategic Plan, is restructured for FY 2008 and now comprises the activities formerly described
in the Pesticides: Field Programs, Pesticides: Review/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides and
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides program projects, as they relate to the value of
pesticide availability.
The statute clearly recognizes that there will be societal benefits beyond protection of human
health and the environment from the pesticide registration process that it establishes. For
example, an estimated $900 million in termite damage is avoided each year through the
availability of effective termiticides. While some effective termiticides have been removed from
the market due to safety concerns, EPA continues to work with industry to register safe
alternatives that meet or exceed all current safety standards and offer a high level of protection.
Section 3 of FIFRA also authorizes EPA to register "me-too" products; that is, products that are
identical or substantially similar to already-registered products. The entry of these new products,
also known as "generics," into the market can cause price reductions resulting from new
competition and broader access to products. These price declines generate competition that
provides benefits to farmers and consumers.
EPA's Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program's efforts to increase adoption of Integrated
EPM-212
-------
Pest Management (IPM) in schools has led to a documented 50 percent reduction in pest control
costs as well as a 90 percent reduction in both pesticide applications and pest problems. This
"Monroe Model" serves as an example of how to implement IPM in school districts across the
country.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA's statutory and regulatory functions include registration, reregi strati on, RED
implementation, registration review, stewardship/implementation and program management.
During 2008, EPA will continue to review and register new pesticides, new uses for existing
pesticides, and other registration requests in accordance with FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) standards as well as Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)
timeframes. Many of these actions will be for reduced-risk pesticides for which, once registered
and utilized by pesticide users, will increase benefits to society. Working together with the
affected user communities through programs such as the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
Program and the Strategic Agricultural Initiative, the Agency will find ways to accelerate the
adoption of these lower-risk products.
Similarly, the Agency will continue its worksharing efforts with its international partners.
Through these collaborative activities and resulting international registrations, international trade
barriers will be reduced, enabling domestic users to more readily adopt these newer pesticides
into their crop protection programs and reduce the costs of registration through work sharing.
The Section 18 program has helped growers when they faced emergency situations that require
the use of pesticides that are not registered for their crops. The economic benefits of the Section
18 program to growers are the avoidance of potential losses they could have incurred in the
absence of pesticides exempted under FIFRA's emergency exemption provisions. The economic
benefits of the Section 18 program to consumers could include savings in consumer expenditures
associated with potential decreases in market prices for the affected crops.
EPA will continue to conduct pre-market evaluations of efficacy claims made for public health
pesticides. In addition to reviewing the health and environmental safety from exposure to these
products, because these products also make public health claims, it is critical that the Agency
determine that, prior to registration, the products will work for their intended purposes. For
some of these products, most notably hospital disinfectants through the Antimicrobial Testing
Program, the Agency will conduct post-market surveillance to monitor the efficacy of these
products.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Billions of dollars in
crop loss avoided by
ensuring that effective
pesticides are available
to address pest
infestations.
FY 2006
Actual
1.5
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
1.5
Units
Rillinn
dollars loss
avoided
EPM-213
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Millions of dollars in
termite structural
damage avoided
annually by ensuring
safe and effective
pesticides are
registered/re-registered
and available for
termite treatment.
FY 2006
Actual
900
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
900
Units
IVfillinn
1VA1111U11
dollctrs
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Reduced cost per acres
using reduced risk
management practices
compared to the grant
and/or contract funds
on environmental
stewardship.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
2.63
(2)
Units
Dollar/Acre
(%)
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$4,145.2 \ +52.4 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides:
Re view/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides program's base resources, including payroll
and FTE, and does not reflect new resources, or program activities that would have been
presented under the previous program project structure.
• (+$3,488.4 \ +27.1 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides:
Registration of New Pesticides program's base resources and does not reflect new
resources, or program activities that would have been presented under the previous
program project structure.
• (+$4,484.5 \ +9.8 FTE) This increase is the incoming transfer of the Pesticides: Field
Program's base resources and does not reflect new resources, or program activities that
would have been presented under the previous program project structure.
• (+$284.1) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$30.1) This increase reflects a shift of resources to support emergency exemptions and
related food security activities.
• (-$154.2) This change reflects a decrease to risk assessment contracts that support
Reregi strati on actions and may delay Reregistation Eligibility Decisions (REDs). The
EPM-214
-------
decrease affects potential outreach activities to states and Tribes including
implementation of REDs, implementation of ESA, safer alternatives for pest
management, and Registration Review communications. Reductions were used to fund
higher priority activities such as development and implementation of the lead rule.
• (-$46.8) This change reflects a savings from consolidation of education and outreach
resources.
• (-$117.2) This decrease results in reduced contract support for outreach and training
provided to states and Tribes implementing the Pesticide Safety Program for agricultural
workers, pesticides handlers and health providers.
• (-1.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The decrease reflects
consolidation of education and outreach and reduced support for implementing pesticides
programs. These reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and
effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
• (-$0.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; ESA; and FQPA.
EPM-215
-------
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$2,035.3
$2,035.3
10.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,754.0
$1,754.0
6.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,780.0
$1,780.0
6.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$26.0
$26.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Agency provides scientific and policy expertise, coordinates EPA interagency and
international efforts, and facilitates 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
assists 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, serves as the primary external independent scientific peer review
mechanism for EPA's pesticide programs. The SAP is managed under this program.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to play a lead role in evaluating the scientific and technical issues associated
with Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) 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
database of genetically engineered crop plants that have completed review for use in the United
States.1
EPA estimates that the SAP will be asked to complete approximately 14 reviews in FY 2008.
The specific topics to be placed on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) SAP agenda are typically confirmed a few months in advance of each session and
' http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/
EPM-216
-------
usually include difficult, new or controversial scientific issues identified in the course of EPA's
pesticide program activities. In FY 2008, topics may include issues related to biotechnology,
chemical-specific risk assessments, and endocrine disrupters.
In addition, a number of international activities will continue to be supported by EPA. Efforts
include representation on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's
(OECD) Working Group on the Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology and
OECD's Task Force for the Safety of Novel Foods and Feed.
Performance Targets:
Currently there are no performance measures for this specific program.
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 activities supported include the registration of new
pesticides, and review and 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 Endocrine Disruptors and others.
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 the 2008 target reduction for the Number of chemicals or
organisms introduced into commerce that pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the
environment through SAP meetings and letter reviews.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$27.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1.4) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including
international travel.
Statutory Authority:
FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA; TSCA.
EPM-217
-------
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
EPM-218
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$38,425.9
$38,425.9
238.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$40,372.3
$40,372.3
266.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,573.0
$39,573.0
252.7
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($799.3)
($799.3)
-14.0
Program Project Description:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes EPA to 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 states1 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, refer to
http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction/.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In the Agency's FY 2006-FY 2011 Strategic Plan, EPA introduced new long term program goals
for corrective action that focus EPA and state efforts on moving facilities from stabilization to
final remedies. In FY 2008, EPA will make progress toward achieving its annual corrective
action goals by completing construction at 27 percent of facilities, controlling human exposures
to contaminants at 95 percent of facilities and controlling the migration of contaminated
groundwater at 81 percent of facilities. These annual goals have been set against a universe of
1,968 facilities.
Consistent with EPA's emphasis on land revitalization, ensuring sustainable future uses for
RCRA corrective action facilities is considered in remedy selections and in the construction of
those remedies. In addition, the Agency will work in partnership with the states to coordinate
cleanup program goals and direction. The Agency also will continue to present training to
Regional and state RCRA Corrective Action staff that focuses on selecting and completing final
remedies.
1 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-219
-------
In FY 2008, the Agency will be working with its state partners to continue developing and
implementing program improvements in order to meet the ambitious 2020 goal. EPA and the
states will continue to develop and implement approaches for selecting and constructing final
remedies at operating facilities that are protective as long as the facility remains active and will
ensure that protective controls are in place if the use changes in the future.
EPA will ensure that polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) waste and PCB remediation sites are
cleaned up correctly. Specific activities include advising the regulated community on PCB
remediation and reviewing and acting on disposal applications for PCB remediation waste.
The RCRA Corrective Action program was initially assessed in 2003 and received an overall
rating of "adequate." The assessment found that the program puts decision-making authority
close to the actual clean up activity while still ensuring oversight and consistency in protecting
human health and the environment. As part of the program's improvement plan, EPA developed
an efficiency measure for the program, which is the number of final remedy components
constructed at RCRA corrective action facilities per Federal, state and private sector costs. The
intent of the measure is to show, over time, the percent increase of final remedy components
constructed per the costs related to the cleanup and oversight of cleanup at RCRA facilities.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of RCRA
construction
completions using
2008 baseline.
FY 2006
Actual
22
FY 2006
Target
13
FY 2007
Target
25
FY 2008
Target
27
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of RCRA
CA facilities with
current human
exposures under
control (using 2008
baseline).
FY 2006
Actual
89
FY 2006
Target
82
FY 2007
Target
92
FY 2008
Target
95
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percent increase of
final remedy
components
constructed at RCRA
corrective action
facilities per federal,
state, and private sector
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
3
FY 2008
Target
3
Units
percent
EPM-220
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
dollars per year.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of RCRA
CA facilities with
migration of
contaminated
groundwater under
control (using 2008
baseline).
FY 2006
Actual
74
FY 2006
Target
68
FY 2007
Target
77
FY 2008
Target
81
Units
percent
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-14.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The program has
matured, resulting in a reduced need for FTE resources due to the delegated nature of the
program and improvements in program management. These reductions will not impede
Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its program.
This net reduction includes an increase of 3.1 FTE, which redirected remedial work
associated with PCB remediation under the Chemical Risk Management program to the
RCRA Corrective Action program.
• (+$143.3) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$883.0) This reduction reflects decreased need due to program success in addressing
stabilization at 95 percent of the highest priority facilities and the program's strategy for
proceeding with remaining long-range critical corrective action work at a deliberate pace.
• (-$55.8) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce international travel as
well as a reduction to program travel expenses in Headquarters and the Regions.
• (-$3.8) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA, Section 8001 as amended, RCRA of 1976 as amended; Public Law 94-580, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.; TSCA; Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988).
EPM-221
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$66,819.2
$66,819.2
443.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$67,887.3
$67,887.3
443.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$69,158.0
$69,158.0
416.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,270.7
$1,270.7
-26.2
Program Project Description:
The Waste Management program's primary focus is to provide national policy directed by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to reduce the amount of waste generated and
to improve the recovery and conservation of materials by focusing on a hierarchy of waste
management options that advocate reduction, reuse, and recycling over treatment and disposal.
This program also strives to prevent releases to the environment from both non-hazardous and
hazardous waste management facilities, 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, including new waste streams from new industrial processes and assessing technological
advances and innovative methods of conducting business in the waste management arena. There
is an increased focus on reuse and recycling, particularly the safe beneficial use of industrial
byproducts as a preference to disposal. Moreover, the program is engaged in regulatory and
other reform efforts to improve the efficiency of the program (e.g., 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. For more information, please refer to
(http ://www. epa. gov/rcc/).
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to assist states in getting permits or other approved controls in
place at facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. EPA will focus efforts on
helping states overcome barriers, particularly with regard to the types of facilities that are
EPM-222
-------
difficult to permit or where emissions are difficult to control, such as boilers and industrial
furnaces (BIFs) and large, complex Federal facilities. The Waste Management Program also will
continue efforts to improve the implementation of the RCRA financial assurance program in
order to ensure that owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities provide proof of their
ability to pay for the clean up, closure, and post-closure care of their facilities.
In FY 2008, the program will continue to work in partnership with the states to incorporate e-
permitting tools to encourage and help states to expedite and simplify the permitting process as
well as provide better public access to permitting information. During FY 2008, the Agency will
continue its pursuit to improve and modernize the hazardous waste tracking system by
developing an "e-manifest." This system will allow electronic processing of hazardous waste
transactions that will greatly enhance tracking capabilities while significantly reducing
administrative burden and costs for governments and the regulated community. The e-manifest
will build on the new standardized manifest form that took effect in September 2006, and will
ensure the continued safe management of hazardous waste.
In FY 2008, EPA plans to follow up on the issuance of the final rule to allow gasification of oil-
bearing hazardous secondary materials from petroleum refining as feedstocks for clean fuels and
basic chemicals, thereby expanding the reuse of petroleum residuals currently managed as waste.
EPA will work with the Department of Energy and outside stakeholders to explore expanding
gasification to additional waste streams using new and emerging technologies along with
examining our regulatory structure to see if further changes would encourage the expanded use
of these clean energy systems. Gasification of these 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 2008 to encourage safe recycling of
hazardous secondary materials by providing streamlined regulatory requirements and minimizing
regulatory burden where appropriate. Increased recycling of hazardous secondary materials is an
important part of moving toward sustainable industrial production by returning recoverable
commodities to the economy, minimizing wasteful disposal of these valuable materials, and
minimizing additional raw materials production. Completion of revisions to the definition of
solid waste, which will promote recycling of a wide range of spent solvents, spent acids and
bases, and metal-containing wastes will be a major project in FY 2008. EPA also will begin
implementation activities associated with these rule revisions.
Another important area of reform in FY 2008 will be the continuation of efforts to make the
hazardous waste program more cost-effective and easy-to-use for the more than 100,000
generators of hazardous waste. This effort encompasses many projects, for example, the
completion of a final regulation specifying alternative requirements for college and university
laboratories that generate hazardous waste. In addition, EPA will prepare guidance materials on
issues raised by the regulated community and, if determined necessary, propose regulatory
changes to improve the program.
The Agency also will work to reduce risks from industrial non-hazardous waste known as
Industrial Subtitle D waste. EPA will continue to work with interested parties to apply the
EPM-223
-------
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.
During FY 2008, 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.
EPA will work with the U.S. Navy to address the reefing of ships and will work with the
Maritime Administration in order to safely dismantle its fleet of obsolete ships which contain
equipment using Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). In addition, the Agency will work with the
Department of Defense to oversee the disposal of PCBs in nerve agent rockets. In FY 2008, EPA
will transfer PCB cleanup and disposal activities from the Chemical Risk Management program
to the RCRA Waste Management program. This transfer will promote efficiency and consolidate
PCB activities into the RCRA program. The focus of activity in FY 2008 will be to continue
monitoring compliance with the conditions of the PCB disposal approvals.
Providing grant funds, training, and technical assistance to Tribes and Tribal organizations for
the purpose of solving solid waste problems and reducing the risk of exposure to improperly
disposed hazardous and solid waste also is a priority in FY 2008. Many of the more than 560
Federally-recognized Tribes have no plan for managing solid and hazardous waste, resulting in
large amounts of waste being open-burned or placed in open dumps. The 2011 GPRA goals are
to increase the number of Tribal governments with an integrated waste management plan by 25
percent and to close, clean, or upgrade 200 open dumps. For FY 2008, the focus of the program
will be on developing training and technical assistance tools for Tribal governments to develop
sustainable waste management programs to meet these goals.
This program was included in the PART review of the RCRA Base, Permits and Grants Program
for FY 2004 which received an overall rating of "adequate." During the PART, EPA developed
an efficiency measure and the baseline (for FY 2005) that was set in July 2006 is 2,143 facilities
under control per $674 million in costs, or 3.17 facilities per million dollars. Costs include
estimates of the permitting costs of the regulated entities plus appropriated dollars for the
program, based on a three year rolling average. The 2007 target is a 2 percent improvement from
baseline, and the 2008 target is a 3 percent improvement from baseline or 1 percent per year.
During FY 2008, EPA will coordinate efforts with the states to meet program goals. The
permits universe was updated for the 2006-2008 cycle. New facilities on the permit track have
been added and those not on the permit track have been omitted. For permit renewals, a new
universe and reporting system was developed to track updated controls. The Agency has
determined that the reporting cycles for permitting and renewals will be consolidated at the end
of FY 2008. Each of these targets contributes toward achieving the goals of EPA's 2006-2011
Strategic Plan.
EPM-224
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Annual increase in the
percentage of RCRA
hazardous waste
management facilities
with permits or other
approved controls.
FY 2006
Actual
4.3
FY 2006
Target
2.5
FY 2007
Target
2.4
FY 2008
Target
1.8
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Facilities under control
(permitted) per total
permitting costs.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
2
FY 2008
Target
3
Units
percent
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$4,000.0) This increase will be used for the development of an e-manifest system.
EPA will continue to work with Congress to obtain the authority to collect user fees to
offset the costs for the development and operation of this system.
• (-$1,560.3) 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.
• (-$1,024.5) This net decrease reflects the completion of several significant rulemakings
and the continued overall streamlining of direct operational support to the RCRA
program. The reduction includes an increase of $301.IK for redirected PCB remedial
work associated with waste management and disposal from the Chemical Risk
Management program to the RCRA Waste Management program. Resources are not
included in the FY 2008 budget for a major PCB rulemaking.
• (-$113.5) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce international travel as
well as a reduction to program travel expenses in Headquarters and the Regions.
• (-$16.2) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$14.8) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT systems.
• (-26.2 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. The program has
matured, resulting in a reduced need for federal FTE resources due to the delegated
nature of the program and improvements in program management. This net reduction
EPM-225
-------
includes an increase of 9.1 FTE, which redirected remedial work associated with PCB
waste management and disposal from the Chemical Risk Management program to the
RCRA Waste Management program. These reductions will not impede Agency efforts to
maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA, Section 8001, as amended; RCRA of 1976 as amended; Public Law-94-580, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.; TSCA; Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988).
EPM-226
-------
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve 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 2006
Actuals
$12,067.4
$12,067.4
70.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,235.1
$12,235.1
74.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$13,666.0
$13,666.0
82.2
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,430.9
$1,430.9
7.8
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.
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 performance metrics,
information sharing, recognition, and assistance to improve practices in both public and private
sectors. For more information, please refer to 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 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.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Municipal Solid Waste
Under the RCC, EPA will continue its efforts to motivate, inspire, and provide leadership to
industry, Federal, state and local governments, public interest groups, and citizens to reduce,
EPM-227
-------
reuse, and recycle municipal wastes. In the 2006 Strategic Plan, EPA challenges the nation to
recycle 40 percent of the US generated municipal waste stream by 2011. EPA has developed
and implemented several collaborative partnership programs designed to help the nation reach
the 40 percent recycling challenge. During 2007, EPA will be transitioning from the current
measures (i.e., tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) recycled and per capita generation rate of
MSW) to EPA-specific measures which directly contribute to the 40 percent recycling challenge.
To ensure continuity during the transition, EPA will continue to report on our current measures
through 2008.
In FY 2008, EPA will lead efforts on three large-volume waste categories with the greatest
opportunity for recycling: 1) paper; 2) organics; and 3) packaging and containers. These three
commodity streams represent between 60 percent and 70 percent of the municipal solid waste
stream and are key areas on which the nation must focus resources to reach the 40 percent
recycling challenge.
EPA's WasteWise program is now in its thirteenth year and has over 1,650 partners and 300
endorsers. Between 1994 and 2006, WasteWise partners recycled nearly 231 billion pounds of
material and reported diversion of more than 34.7 billion pounds of materials from the waste
stream through donation and reuse activities. As part of WasteWise, EPA will provide tools to
help communities reduce waste and increase recycling and will promote alliances between
businesses and communities that can advance waste reduction and recycling. An example of this
is the Recycle on the Go initiative that promotes the development of recycling opportunities in
key public venues, schools, and offices to increase collection of recyclables as well as public
awareness of the importance of recycling.
Through the GreenScapes program, EPA will provide cost-efficient and environmentally friendly
solutions for landscape design, construction, and maintenance at large and small developments
such as golf courses, parks and industrial parks. The goal is to preserve natural resources and
prevent waste and pollution by encouraging organizations and individuals to make
environmentally sound decisions regarding their landscape practices and purchases.
Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste
Under the RCC, EPA 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
effort is focusing on three industrial non-hazardous waste streams: 1) Coal Combustion Products;
2) Construction and Demolition Debris; and 3) Foundry Sand.
In FY 2008, the program will expand its voluntary Coal Combustion Partnership program
(C2P2) to include industrial material recycling. EPA will 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. In the 2006 Strategic Plan, EPA established a new measure
to increase the percentage of coal combustion use to 50 percent by 2011, from 32 percent in
2001. The most recent data from the 2004 annual survey show coal combustion products'
beneficial use has increased to 40 percent.
EPM-228
-------
EPA also will continue working with Federal, state, and private sector outreach programs to
promote environmentally safe and sound recycling of construction and demolition (C&D) debris,
which is a larger waste stream than municipal solid waste (approximately 311 million tons in
2003). In FY 2008, EPA will move toward achieving its newly established FY 2011 goal of
increasing the recycling rate of C&D materials to 65 percent, from the FY 2003 baseline of 59
percent, by working with persons conducting building and transportation construction projects to
encourage the use of C&D materials instead of virgin resources.
Priority Chemicals Reduction
In FY 2008, through the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP), the Agency
will continue to reduce priority chemicals which are persistent, bioaccumulative, and highly
toxic. The NPEP program has established a goal to reduce program priority chemicals by 4
million pounds by FY 2011. As of August 2006, the NPEP program has obtained industry
commitments for 2.1 million pounds of priority chemical reductions through 2011. These
reductions will be achieved primarily through source reduction made possible by safer chemical
substitutes. In FY 2008, EPA will continue to build on the successes achieved by over 100
existing partners and promote the growth of the NPEP through expanded outreach activities,
workshops, and enhanced Regional involvement. In addition to enrolling new partners, EPA will
seek new commitments from existing partners.
EPA initiated a Mercury Roundup in FY 2006 to promote the voluntary early retirement of
devices containing mercury. A formal challenge and request was issued to major industrial
facilities, urging mercury elimination. Partners commit to the following activities:
• Inventory mercury sources in their facilities and evaluate non-mercury alternatives;
• Establish purchasing policies and educate staff; and
• Collect existing mercury for recycling.
By the end of FY 2006, EPA identified several mercury challenge partners. In FY 2008, EPA
expects to identify additional partners and quantify reduction commitments.
Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign and Prevention Program (SC3)
Since its implementation in FY 2004, SC3 has funded 20 pilots that have demonstrated
innovative practices and has worked toward building a national network of industry, teachers'
associations, and government partners to raise national awareness and make chemical clean-out
and prevention techniques widely available to schools. In FY 2007, EPA is using lessons learned
from other programs and demonstration projects to establish a SC3 "infrastructure" that assists
K-12 schools in specific communities with their chemical management. In FY 2008, EPA will
continue its work toward ensuring that K-12 schools in the United States are free from chemical
hazards associated with poor chemical management in schools.
E-Waste
In FY 2008, 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
EPM-229
-------
Electronics Challenge (FEC). Since the 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. EPA will
continue to support an independent certification program for the Electronic Product
Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) which was recently launched in FY 2006 with over
100 certified products.
The FEC, established in FY 2005 to advance the Federal government's goals and practices for
electronics stewardship, grew beyond the pilot stage and has officially enrolled 114 Challenge
partners, representing 16 Federal departments/agencies. Agencies that have committed to the
program represent over 80 percent of Federal agency purchasing power for IT equipment. By
the end of FY 2008, the goal is to have at least 700,000 Federal employees covered under the
FEC.
EPA's Recycling, Waste Minimization, and Waste Management Program assessment was rated
"adequate" in 2004. EPA has 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 identified and confirmed the quality of data sources produced in
the private sector to use with this efficiency measure in FY 2007 and FY 2008. The FY 2006
baseline for the efficiency measure, "number of pounds of priority list chemicals removed from
or reduced in waste streams per cost to perform such actions (costs are Federal RCRA program
extramural dollars and FTE)," is 1,100,000 Ibs / $2,688,935 or 40.9 Ibs reduced per $100 spent.
Targets are set to improve 1.5 percent each year from the baseline.
The new measure for priority chemicals reflects the fact that the National Partnership for
Environmental Priorities (NPEP) has quadrupled its members and now counts over 100 partners.
As of August 2006, the NPEP program has obtained industry commitments for 2.1 million
pounds of priority chemical reductions through the year 2011. Reductions will be achieved
primarily through source reduction made possible by safer chemical substitutes. The NPEP
program is working on modifying its program measure to reflect actual program achievements.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Millions of tons of
municipal solid waste
diverted.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
83.1
FY 2007
Target
85.2
FY 2008
Target
87.3
Units
million tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Daily per capita
generation of
municipal solid waste.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
4.5
FY 2007
Target
4.5
FY 2008
Target
4.5
Units
Ibs. MSW
EPM-230
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of pounds (in
millions) of priority
chemicals reduced, as
measured by National
Partnership for
Environmental
Priorities members.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
0.5
FY 2008
Target
1
Units
pounds
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Number of pounds (in
millions) of priority list
chemicals removed
from or reduced in
waste streams per cost
to perform such actions
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
1.5
FY 2008
Target
1.5
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of
construction and
demolition debris that
is reused or recycled.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
62
FY 2008
Target
62.8
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of coal
combustion ash that is
used instead of
disposed.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
1.8
FY 2008
Target
1.8
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of tribes
covered by an adequate
and recently-approved
integrated solid waste
management plan.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
27
FY 2008
Target
26
Units
tribes
Measure
Type
Measure
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
EPM-231
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of closed,
cleaned up, or
upgraded open dumps
in Indian Country or on
other tribal lands.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
30
FY 2008
Target
30
Units
open dumps
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,675.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$226.0) This reduction reflects a continuing refinement of the national focus on the
three large-volume waste categories: paper, organics, and packaging and containers.
• (-$14.4) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce international travel as
well as a reduction to program travel expenses in Headquarters and the Regions.
• (-$4.4) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (+7.8 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This change reflects
support for increased programmatic goals to be accomplished by 2011, including
attaining the national 40 percent recycling challenge, increasing the reuse and/or
recycling of construction and demolition debris to 65 percent, and increasing the
percentage of coal combustion use to 50 percent.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; Section 8001 as amended; RCRA of 1976, as amended; Public Law 94-580, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq. Veterans Administration (VA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act; Public Law 105-276; 112 Stat, 2461, 2499 (1988);
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101).
EPM-232
-------
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
EPM-233
-------
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$9,090.4
$9,090.4
56.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
57,736.5
$7,736.5
52.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,654.0
$5,654.0
33.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,082.5)
($2,082.5)
-19.3
Program Project Description:
EPA has established national programs to promote reductions in use and to ensure safe removal,
disposal and containment of certain prevalent, high-risk chemicals some of which were
introduced into the environment before their risks were known. These chemicals include
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and asbestos/fibers. The 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
In FY 2008, EPA will provide assistance on issues related to PCB use, distribution in commerce,
manufacture, processing, and import and/or export for use or management other than disposal.
These issues also include excluded manufacturing processes, storage for reuse, and the
uncontrolled burning of materials containing PCBs. EPA will also consider regulatory changes
to address manufacturing processes that inadvertently generate PCBs. In 2008, the management
of the TSCA PCB cleanup and disposal programs will be transferred to the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) for consolidation and to promote efficiency.
EPA will provide technical assistance to facilitate the development of legislation for 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 electrical equipment
by 2025.
Passing legislation to implement the Persistent Organic Pollutant (POPs) Treaty is a priority for
EPA. Recently the Administration expressed full support for two bills which provide domestic
authority for the United States to join and implement the POPs Treaty.
EPM-234
-------
Mercury
As described in EPA 's Roadmap for Mercury (July 2006), EPA continues to work within the
Agency and with states and relevant stakeholders to create strategies for addressing the use of
mercury in products. The program will continue to use its voluntary, regulatory and educational
programs to achieve the Agency's goal of addressing mercury exposure from products in the
waste stream. The program continues to update and expand its mercury use and products
database that will be made available to the public in late 2007. This database helps the public
identify potential products containing mercury and recommends product alternatives. In FY
2008, the program will also be conducting analysis and implementing recommendations from a
2007 stakeholder process to get input on the best approach for the long-term management of
non-federal commodity grade mercury. The Agency is working with the States and other
stakeholders to examine and implement solutions for the long-term management of excess
mercury.
Asbestos/Fibers
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.
This program has not yet been reviewed through PART.
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.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,784.0) 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 and lower overall FTE levels.
• (-19.3 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. A reduction of 6.3 FTE is
the result of the consolidation of education and outreach and a shift in priorities in the
EPA regional offices. A reduction of 13.0 FTE redirects staff and transfers PCB
remediation, waste management and disposal to the RCRA program.
EPM-235
-------
• (-$298.5) This change redirects resources to transfer PCB remediation, waste
management and disposal to the RCRA program while retaining the product management
function in the Chemical Risk Management program.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA; ASHAA; AHERA; AIA.
EPM-236
-------
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$41,500.9
$41,500.9
232.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$44,637.0
$44,637.0
244.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$45,046.0
$45,046.0
241.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$409.0
$409.0
-3.0
Program Project Description:
This program spans the full range of EPA activities associated with screening, assessing and
reducing risks of new and existing chemicals. Key program efforts include the following:
• Assessment of nanoscale materials,
• The Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Stewardship Program launched in January 2006,
• Screening of high production volume chemicals under the High Production Volume
Challenge (HPV) Program and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) Program,
• The Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation (VCCEP) Program, and
• The development of Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs).
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.
2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
New Chemicals Program
In FY 2008, 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, the Premanufacture Notice (PMN) Review component of EPA's New Chemicals Program
reviews and manages the potential risks from approximately 1,500 new chemicals and 40
products of biotechnology that are prepared to enter the marketplace. To measure performance
under this program, EPA adopted a long-term measure 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 introduced in FY 2007, and will continue in FY
2008, a corresponding annual performance measure that more specifically quantifies the goal of
EPM-237
-------
allowing no chemicals into commerce that pose unreasonable risk. For more information visit
www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.
Nanoscale Materials
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to implement 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 these substances.
Existing Chemicals Program
The Agency's Existing Chemicals program screens, assesses, and manages the human health and
environmental risks of chemicals already in commerce. An important example of the Agency's
Existing Chemical work is its activities on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). PFOA is an essential
processing aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers, and may also be a breakdown product of
other related chemicals. EPA will continue to evaluate and implement PFOA risk management
actions, as indicated by the results of ongoing risk assessment and testing under enforceable
consent agreements.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue telomer biodegradation testing as well as the testing of consumer
articles containing PFOA or telomers that may degrade to PFOA. Also, the Agency launched a
global PFOA Stewardship Program in January 2006 for U.S. fluoropolymer and telomer
manufacturers. Participating companies have committed to reducing PFOA from emissions and
product content by 95 percent no later than 2010, and to work toward eliminating PFOA from
emissions and product content no later than 2015. EPA expects significant progress towards
these goals in FY 2008. For more information visit www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa.
High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to make basic screening level hazard data on high production
volume chemicals available to the public. The data, along with exposure-related data collected
during 2007 under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Rule (IUR), will
be available and searchable using a new set of information tools. EPA will be in the process of
screening the data submitted under the HPV Challenge Program and IUR and identifying
chemicals of potential risk concern that may require additional work, currently anticipated to
involve five to ten percent of screened chemicals. Additionally, EPA will accommodate the
submission of health and safety data on chemicals identified through the recently announced
industry-led Extended High Production Volume Challenge Program (EHPV). For more
information visit www.epa.gov/chemrtk/volchall.htm.
EPA will continue its international participation in the 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.
EPM-238
-------
Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP)
In FY 2008, EPA will continue its review of chemicals that may pose risks to children. EPA will
use the information gathered from an evaluation of the initial pilot of VCCEP and work with
stakeholders to adjust and enhance VCCEP's post-pilot operations in FY 2008 and beyond. EPA
expects that a significant portion of the operational costs of VCCEP will be shifted from EPA to
companies sponsoring chemicals in the program beginning in FY 2008. For more information
visit www.epa.gov/chemrtk/vccep/index.htm.
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs)
First responders dealing with chemical emergencies use AEGL values to determine safe
exposure levels. In FY 2008, EPA's AEGL program plans to develop proposed AEGL values of
24 additional chemicals. Following September 11, 2001, investment of 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. 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.
• The program's annual and long-term outcome measures are based on development of
proposed AEGL values.
For more information visit www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl.
EPA's Existing Chemicals underwent PART review in 2002 and was reassessed in 2003. The
Existing Chemicals Program received an "Adequate" rating. The PART improvement plan
recommended that EPA develop two efficiency measures. The Agency developed a cost
efficiency measure for the AEGL program that will be evaluated when this program is PARTed
in Spring 2007: total EPA cost per chemical for which a proposed AEGL data set is developed.
This efficiency measure will enable EPA to judge whether it is achieving the aims of the AEGLs
program at a greater or lesser cost efficiency.
The Agency is in the process of fulfilling the remaining efficiency measure requirement through
developing a cost-efficiency measure for management of the TSCA 8(e) Hazard Notification
process. This efficiency measure will also be evaluated when this program is PARTed in Spring
2007. The Agency expects this to be completed in time for inclusion in the FY 2009 budget.
EPA's New Chemicals Program underwent PART review in 2002 and was reassessed in 2003.
The New Chemicals Program received a "Moderately Effective" rating. The Agency has
developed an efficiency measure of the percent change in costs associated with the latter stages
of the PMN Review process, reflecting cost savings expected from new chemical prescreening
by PMN submittals through EPA's Sustainable Futures Program. This efficiency measure will
EPM-239
-------
be evaluated when this program is PARTed in Spring 2007. For more information, please visit
the EPA website: www.epa.gov/oppt.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Cumulative number of
chemicals with
proposed, interim,
and/or final values for
Acute Exposure
Guidelines Levels
(AEGL)
FY 2006
Actual
185
FY 2006
Target
145
FY 2007
Target
209
FY 2008
Target
233
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 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2008
FY 2006
Target
3
FY 2007
Target
2.5
FY 2008
Target
2.5
Units
Percent RSEI
rel risk
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percent reduction from
prior year in total EPA
cost per chemical for
which proposed AEGL
value sets are
developed.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
34,160
(2)
FY 2008
Target
34,160
(2)
Units
Cost savings
(%)
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percent change from
prior year in cost
savings due to new
chemical prescreening.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
6.7
Units
Percent cost
savings
Work under the AEGL program also supports the Homeland Security program area. Progress
through FY 2006 demonstrates a total of 185 chemicals with proposed, interim and/or final AEGL value
sets. The significant increase in the performance target from FY 2007 to FY 2008 reflects
significantly greater than expected progress in developing Proposed AEGL values for additional
chemicals in FY 2005 and FY 2006, due to the unanticipated opportunities to utilize an approach of
EPM-240
-------
grouping chemicals with similar characteristics into categories, increasing efficiency and saving time and
resources.
Reduction in the current year production-adjusted risk-based score of releases and transfers of
toxic chemicals measure tracks EPA's progress in reducing existing chemical risks under TSCA.
The measure is based on the Risk Screening Environmental Indicator (RSEI) model, which
calculates a risk index based on releases of TRI chemicals.
Annual performance targets for the RSEI measure are based on the Agency's long-term strategic
target of reducing relative risk to chronic human health associated with environmental releases of
industrial chemicals in commerce. Based on a revised performance trend analysis of 2001
through 2003 data, the long-term and annual measures were revised. The Agency's long-term
strategic target is by 2011, to achieve a 26 percent cumulative reduction of chronic human health
risk from environmental releases of industrial chemicals in commerce since 2001. This target
equates to a 2.5 percent annual reduction over 5 years, given a cumulative reduction of 5.8
percent in 2003. TRI data is subject to a two-year data lag, which means this measure has a
corresponding delay in reporting on results.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,155.6) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-3.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
• (-$726.6) This reduction will delay chemical assessment and reviews under the Voluntary
Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP) by 1, remaining at a cumulative total
of 9.
• (-$20.0) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including
international travel.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA.
EPM-241
-------
Endocrine Disruptors
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$7,350.1
$7,350.1
18.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$7,985.4
$7,985.4
14.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,890.0
$5,890.0
11.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,095.4)
($2,095.4)
-3.0
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 will develop and validate
approximately 20 candidate scientific test methods from which a battery of tests will be selected
and used for routine, ongoing evaluation of pesticides and other chemicals to determine their
potential for adverse health or environmental effects by interfering with endocrine system
function.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the EDSP will validate 13 of the 20 assays that will be used to either screen
chemicals to identify those that can interact with the endocrine system (Tier I), or to confirm
these findings and provide information that can be used in risk assessment. The Agency will
continue to 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 Endocrine Disrupter program was assessed in 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.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Cumulative number of
assays validated
FY 2006
Actual
2/21
FY 2006
Target
11/20
FY 2007
Target
8/20
FY 2008
Target
13/20
Units
Assays
EPM-242
-------
This program's output performance measure represents the progress toward completing the
validation of endocrine test methods that will be used to screen chemicals for their potential to
affect the endocrine system, as required by FQPA.
The FY 2006 actual is below the target because the initial assumptions on which this measure
was based proved to be invalid. The program experienced scientific and technical problems that
could not have been predicted on several assays (e.g., aromatase, steroidogenesis, androgen
binding), as well as unanticipated delays in international decisions on assays being validated in
coordination with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (e.g., estrogen
and androgen binding assays). Data are now available for several of the assays that were delayed
because of scientific and technical issues, and the schedule for OECD participation is now better
understood. The program has reassessed its performance measures to account for these
developments and incorporated these changes in EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$151.2) 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.
• (-3.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The affected resources
establish policies, procedures and rules for implementing the endocrine effects screening
authorities of the Food Quality Protection Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. These
reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in
carrying out its programs.
• (-$1,944.2) This decrease reflects the historic pace of program research and a shift to
other priority areas in the Agency. The cut may postpone the validation of mammal
assays, interlaboratory trials and initial screening of the first set of potential endocrine-
disrupting chemicals.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CERCLA; SARA; OP A; SOW A; CAA; CWA; TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; EPCRA; ODA;
PPA.
EPM-243
-------
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$12,087.0
$12,087.0
76.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$11,367.6
$11,367.6
82.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$13,546.0
$13,546.0
87.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$2,1 78.4
$2,178.4
4.1
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.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA is developing a comprehensive program to address lead hazards created by renovation,
repair, and painting activities in homes with lead-based paint. In FY 2008, EPA will invest in
promulgating a final regulation to address lead-safe work practices for renovation, repair, and
painting activities. To implement this rule, EPA will develop and disseminate model lead safe
work practices training courses, develop brochures and other public education and compliance
assistance materials, and coordinate nationally with co-regulating states, territories and Tribes.
EPA's budget request for FY 2008 includes a $1 million investment for the Lead program to
support work associated with completion of the Renovation and Remodeling (R&R) Rule, with a
corresponding increase in the annual performance target.
The Agency will continue to provide education and outreach to the public on the hazards of lead-
contaminated paint, dust, and soil, with particular emphasis on low-income, multi-cultural
communities in support of the program's goal to reduce disparities in blood lead levels between
low-income children and other children. The program also will 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 (NLIC) to disseminate information to the public primarily in electronic form.
The Lead Risk Reduction program has a companion State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
program, "Lead Categorical Grant." See the Categorical Grant: Lead program project narrative
for more information. Taken together, these programs contribute to common strategic targets
EPM-244
-------
and annual performance goals.
information.
See http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/index.html for more
The Lead program underwent its first PART in FY 2005, receiving a "moderately effective"
rating. Through the PART, EPA introduced a new long-term 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. Through the PART Improvement Plan process, EPA improved the consistency of
grantee and regional accountability and improved the linkage between program funding and
program goals with an emphasis on program grant and contractor funding. In FY 2008, the
Agency will implement additional PART-recommended Improvement Plans to enhance program
partners' accountability and results and to target program resources and activities on populations
that face a significant risk of being exposed to lead. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/index.html
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 2006
Actual
75
FY 2006
Target
71
FY 2007
Target
72
FY 2008
Target
72
Units
Percent
Certif/Refund
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of cases of
children (aged 1-5
years) with elevated
blood lead levels
(>10ug/dl).
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2006
Target
216,000
FY 2007
Target
199,000
FY 2008
Target
90,000
Units
Children
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 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2009
FY 2006
Target
29
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
29
Units
Percent
EPM-245
-------
The Lead program's annual efficiency measure tracks improvements in certification application
time for lead-based paint professionals and refund applications. Certification work represents a
significant portion of the Lead budget and overall efficiencies in management of certification
activities will result in numerous opportunities to improve program management effectiveness
and efficiency. FY 2006 end-of-year results demonstrate that the Lead program exceeded its
end-of-year target for the percentage of lead-based paint certifications and refund applications
that require less than 40 days to process by achieving a 75 percent result, compared to the target
value of 71 percent. The Lead program's efficiency measure is relatively new and performance
trends have not been established. As a result, the Lead program is unable to determine if the FY
2006 end-of-year results are a one time occurrence. Accordingly, performance targets for FY
2007 and FY 2008 were not adjusted.
The program's long-standing annual performance measure tracks the number of children aged 1
to 5 years with elevated blood lead levels (> or = 10 ug/dL). Data are 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 are 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.
1999-2002 NHANES data, released in May of 2005, estimate 310,000 cases of children with
elevated blood lead levels, demonstrating continued progress towards the national goal to
eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern by 2010. However, the revised
CDC estimate also showed a slower rate of progress, reflecting increased challenges associated
with reaching the remaining vulnerable populations.
The program's new annual performance measure, introduced in FY 2007 and also based on
NHANES data, examines the disparities of blood lead levels in low-income children compared to
non low-income children. The program uses this performance measure to track progress toward
eliminating childhood lead poisoning in harder to reach vulnerable populations. EPA's annual
performance targets strive to close the gap between the geometric means of blood lead levels
among children of low income families vs. children of non-low-income families, from a baseline
percentage difference of 37 percent (1991-1994), to a difference of 29 percent by the year 2008.
EPA's draft 2006-2011 Strategic Plan includes two strategic targets for the Lead program:
• By 2010, eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern by reducing to
zero the number of cases of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead levels
(>10ug/dl).
• By 2010, reduce to 28 percent the percent difference in the geometric mean blood lead
levels in low-income children 1-5 years old as compared to the geometric mean for non-
low income children 1-5 years old.
EPM-246
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,168.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1,009.5) This increase supports development and implementation of the lead rule.
• (+4.1 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The increase redirects
resources to address lead program implementation and assistance priorities in EPA's
regional offices.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA.
EPM-247
-------
Pollution Prevention Program
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
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 2006
Actuals
$17,744.8
$17,744.8
89.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$21,292.4
$21,292.4
86.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$19,935.0
$19,935.0
88.6
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($1,357.4)
($1,357.4)
1.8
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 by preventing the generation of pollution
at the source. For more information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/p2/.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Program:
The goal of this program is for the Federal government to serve as a model to others for
environmental stewardship through incorporating environmental considerations into routine
purchasing decisions. In FY 2008, 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 and to 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. The program also will 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 implement a partnership with the General Services
Administration (GSA) to "green" government meetings. See
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/pubs/about/about.htm for more information.
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
EPM-248
-------
assistance. The Green Suppliers Network also will intensify and institutionalize state pollution
prevention involvement. The GSN infrastructure developments completed in 2006 and 2007 will
be the platform for establishing the GSN "franchises" at the state and local level. The Green
Suppliers Network will continue to strengthen focus on emerging issues and chemicals of
national concern within the Green Suppliers Network. For more information, visit
http://www.greensuppliers.gov/gsn/home.gsn
Green Chemistry:
This program emphasizes the development of new chemistries that cost less, eliminate or reduce
hazardous chemical usage and waste, and eliminate the need for potentially dangerous processes,
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 (DfE)//Green Engineering:
DfE will continue collaborating with industry and non-governmental organizations in three focus
areas to reduce risk from chemicals. First, the DfE Formulator Program promotes opportunities
for pollution prevention and stewardship in creating safer chemical products. Second, DfE
collaborates with the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to encourage
the use of voluntary DfE Best Work Place Practices for Auto Refinishing to reduce risks to
workers and communities. The program will also work to modify and enhance DfE Best
Practices, which were developed in partnership with stakeholders as a practical solution, so that
they can be used in developing OAQPS area 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
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
safer for human health and the environment. Third, DfE will inform substitution to safer
chemicals through partnerships with the electronics, wire and cable, polyurethane foam, and
furniture industries to help them choose safer chemicals. This work will reduce the potential
product liabilities that these industries face, while promoting a positive industry image and
reducing 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. DfE
partnerships will also reassure these industries that alternatives will be safer for human health
and the environment.
EPM-249
-------
EPA expects these new partnerships to produce measurable results, such as the replacement of
approximately 18.7 million pounds of flame retardants (a fully-realized result of the DfE
partnership with the furniture industry to find safer flame retardants for furniture foam) and as
much as 176 million pounds of lead per year with safer alternatives. In FY 2008, 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/opptintr/greenengineering/.
Hospitals for Healthy Environment (H2E) Program:
This voluntary program, with more than 1,200 Hospital Partners, became an independent non-
profit organization in 2006, the first to do so in the history of EPA voluntary programs,
significantly reducing EPA's costs for administering the program. EPA's continuing roles in
support of this program include providing technical expertise and facilitating cooperative
working relationships with other programs such as Energy Star, Green Suppliers Network and
EPEAT. In addition, EPA is directing a series of pilot healthcare mercury reduction programs on
an international scale including programs in China, Argentina, and Central America. For more
information, visit http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pollutionprevention/pubs/h2e.htm.
EPA's Pollution Prevention Program underwent PART review in 2006 and received a
"moderately effective" rating, confirming that the program produces important environmental
results in a well-managed and efficient manner. The PART improvement plan recommended
that EPA evaluate and implement Science Advisory Board Report recommendations for
improving performance measures to better demonstrate Pollution Prevention results, work to
reduce barriers confronted by industry and others in attempting to implement source reduction,
fully implement Grant Track and the P2 State Reporting System, and develop additional
efficiency measures in time for inclusion in the FY 2009 budget submission. The Pollution
Prevention Program has already developed one efficiency measure focusing on the Design for
the Environment Program's formulators effort.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Business, institutional
and government costs
reduced by P2 program
participants.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
45. 9M
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of hazardous
materials reduced by
P2 program
participants.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
429AM
Units
Pounds
EPM-250
-------
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Reductions of
hazardous chemicals
per federal dollar
spent.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
136
Units
lbs/$
The Pollution Prevention Program has two GPRA performance measures that are directly linked
to its own interventions. OPPT has engaged the SAB in reviewing all of its P2 measures and
measurement approaches to assist in making further improvements in the program's ability to
demonstrate valuable results. These measures target and document a broad range of the
program's environmental benefits and integrate performance results contributions from all
components of the program. The program has demonstrated substantial progress in achieving its
established targets for its annual and long term goals. Data currently available indicate two
billion pounds of hazardous materials were reduced since FY 2000 and $108 million of cost
savings realized by businesses, institutions and governments since 2002.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,239.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE and
increases associated with repositioning 1.8 FTE in the regions to address regional
priorities.
• (-$2,279.1) This reflects a reduction in voluntary program development and support for
Environmental Purchasing, Green Suppliers Network, Design for the Environment, Green
Engineering and Hospitals for a Healthy Environment programs.
• (-$315.0) This change reflects savings from the consolidation of education and outreach
in EPA's regional offices.
• (+1.8 FTE) This increase represents the net shift of regional resources to support their
pollution prevention priorities.
• (-$2.5) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including
international travel.
Statutory Authority:
PPA and TSCA.
EPM-251
-------
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
EPM-252
-------
LUST / UST
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$9,042.3
$11,889.1
$20,931.4
111.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$11,713.7
$10,590.1
$22,303.8
131.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$11,719.0
$10,558.0
$22,277.0
131.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$5.3
($32.1)
($26.8)
0.0
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, including new requirements described in the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of
2005. 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 (refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST/20comply.htm
and http://www.epa.gov/OUST/20tnkprf.htm for more information).
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 primarily to improve compliance, but also to coordinate with the Brownfields
program to encourage more state tanks programs to apply for available petroleum brownfields
grants to help foster the oversight and integration of "relatively low risk petroleum sites" into
their respective voluntary cleanup programs. EPA will use EPM funds to carry out EPA's
responsibilities under Title XV, Subtitle B of the EPAct of 2005. Appropriations from the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund will not be used to implement the
release prevention and detection provisions in the EPAct in FY 2008.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPAct1 contains numerous provisions that significantly affect Federal and state underground
storage tank (UST) programs. The EPAct requires that EPA and states strengthen tank release
1 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109 cong_public Iaws&docid=f:publ058.109.pdf
Energy Policy Act of 2005,; Title XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels, Subtitle B - Underground Storage Tank
Compliance, on pages 500-513.
EPM-253
-------
and prevention programs, through such activities as: mandatory inspections every three years for
all underground storage tanks, operator training, and prohibition of delivery for non-complying
facilities2, secondary containment3 or financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and
installers, and various compliance reports. In FY 2008, EPA will continue to focus attention on
the need to bring all UST systems into compliance and keep them in compliance with the release
detection and release prevention requirements. These activities include assisting states in
conducting inspections, conducting inspections in Idaho (where EPA is the lead agency), and
assisting other Federal agencies to improve their compliance at UST facilities.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue promoting 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. To help states and Tribes implement the UST
prevention program, EPA will continue to provide web-based training modules that address
topics such as cathodic protection, leak detection, spill containment, and overfill protection
components of the UST system. The training modules at
http://www.epa.gov/swerust 1 /virtual.htm provide UST inspectors with core and advanced
knowledge on how to inspect an UST system.
EPA will also continue to monitor and address the impact of releases from USTs including
specific contaminants that can cause concern (e.g., MTBE). In FY 2008, the UST program will
continue to coordinate with the Brownfields program to encourage states to move low risk
petroleum sites toward cleanup completion as part of the Brownfields' overall initiative to move
all sites toward cleanup completion.
EPA has the primary responsibility for implementation of the UST Program in Indian country.
Grants under Public Law (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 also will implement the UST Tribal
strategy4 developed in FY 2006 in Indian country.
The Agency and states also 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 thousand in cleanup costs for each release prevented. 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 more than 100 percent.
2 Refer \o_Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the Delivery Prohibition Provision of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, August 2006, EPA-510-R-06-003, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/Delivery%20Prohibition__080706.pdf.
3 Refer to Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the Secondary Containment Provisions of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, November 2006, EPA-501-R-06-001,
http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/fedlaws/Final%20Sec%20Cont%20GLs%2011-15-06.pdf.
4 Refer to Strategy For An EPA/Tribal Partnership To Implement Section 1529 Of The EPACT Of 2005, August
2006, EPA-510-F-06-005, http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/fedlaws/Tribal%20Strategy_080706r.pdf
EPM-254
-------
The UST (prevention) program received an overall rating of "moderately effective" in 2006. As
a component of a PART improvement plan, the program will be working with its state partners
to consider various options to measure efficiency and consider various options to measure the
activities associated with the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
The program has set a goal of increasing significant operational compliance (SOC) by one
percent (1%) per year from the 2004 baseline of 64 percent. As states continue to inspect
previously uninspected facilities, SOC rates may decline as states find more facilities that are not
in compliance leaving EPA with challenging and ambitious targets for FYs 21007 and 2008.
The program also measures confirmed releases reported each year, with a goal of fewer than
10,000 releases each year. Between FYs 1999 and 2006, confirmed UST releases averaged
10,534.
Performance goals and measures for the LUST/UST EPM program are currently a component of
the overall LUST/UST Program's measures. As a result, the UST Categorical Grant program
also contributes to the achievement of these performance measures.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
No more than 10,000
confirmed releases per
year.
FY 2006
Actual
8,361
FY 2006
Target
<10,000
FY 2007
Target
<10,000
FY 2008
Target
<10,000
Units
UST releases
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Increase the rate of
significant operational
compliance by 1% over
the previous year's rate
(target).
FY 2006
Actual
62
FY 2006
Target
66
FY 2007
Target
67
FY 2008
Target
68
Units
percent
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Request (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$20.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$14.5) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce international travel as
well as a reduction to program travel expenses in Headquarters and the Regions.
• (-$1.1) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (+$.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
EPM-255
-------
Statutory Authority:
SWDA of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Reauthorization Amendments of 1986 (Subtitle
I), Section 8001 (a) and (b) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(P.L. 98-616); EPAct, Title XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels, Subtitle B - Underground Storage
Tank Compliance, Sections 1521 - 1533, P.L. 109-58, 42 U.S.C. 15801; RCRA of 1976; Tribal
Grants, P.L. 105-276.
EPM-256
-------
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
EPM-257
-------
Great Lakes Legacy Act
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
526,777.7
$26,771.7
0.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$49,600.0
$49,600.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$35,000.0
$35,000.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($14,600.0)
($14,600.0)
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.1 A quantitative estimate of the impact on fish tissue
contamination is not available, however sediment remediation activities will contribute to the
reduction of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and other contaminants by removing significant
quantities of contaminants (or by capping to reduce the biological availability of contaminants).
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The FY 2008 projects will result in cleaning up of some three hundred thousand cubic yards of
contaminated sediments over the expected 6 month to 2 year project lifetime. The Great Lakes
Legacy Act rule outlines how projects are prioritized to remediate contaminated sediments in the
Great Lakes AOCs. In FY 2008, EPA expects to support two to four projects for remediation.
(See http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/sediment/legacy/index.html for more information.)
1 International Joint Commission - Sediment Priority Action Committee, Great Lakes Water Quality Board. 1997.
OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO SEDIMENT REMEDIATION in the Great Lakes Basin.
http://www. He. ors/php/Dublications/html/sedrem. html.
EPM-258
-------
Volume of Sediment Remediated
via the Great Lakes Legacy Act Program
(as of 12/19/06)
600,000
500,000
_ 400,000
| 300,000
_
O
>
200,000
100,000
2004
2005
2006
Year
2007
2008
Source: USEPA - Great Lakes National Program Office, December 2006.
Reporting in 2008 is expected to show that EPA and its partners will have remediated a
cumulative total of 5 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments since tracking began in
1997. Remediation from Legacy Act projects will contribute to this growing total. EPA
estimates that in 2007 and 2008, Legacy Act projects will remediate a total of over 800,000 cubic
yards of contaminated sediments. The total contaminated sediment remediation need in the
Great Lakes as of 1997 is estimated to have been about 46 million cubic yards.3
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cubic yards (in
millions) of
contaminated sediment
remediated in the Great
Lakes, (cumulative
from 1997)
FY 2006
Actual
4.1
FY 2006
Target
3.2
FY 2007
Target
4.5
FY 2008
Target
5.0
Units
Cubic
yards/M
Volume of Sediment Remediated in the Great Lakes Legacy Act Program, December 2006. Available from Great
Lakes National Program Office Sediment Files^Projections are based on best available information - signed project
agreements for 2007 and a cost-based formula for 2008. Some of the remediation expected to occur in 2006 was
delayed, resulting in a higher projection for 2007.
3 USEPA-Great Lakes National Program Office. December 2006. Unpublished Report in Great Lakes
NationalProgram Office Sediment Files.
EPM-259
-------
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.4 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 remaining 42 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments in Great
Lakes AOCs.
This program has not been reviewed under the PART process.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$14,600.0) This reduction brings the request in line with appropriated levels.
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 Bi-national
Toxics Strategy; and the U.S.-Canada Agreements.
4 USEPA-Great Lakes National Program Office. Sediment Remediation. Available from
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/sediments/remediateb.html.
EPM-260
-------
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$26,294.4
$26,294.4
48.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$18,417.2
$18,417.2
57.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$17,203.0
$17,203.0
53.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($1,214.2)
($1,214.2)
-4.0
Program Project Description:
The goal of this program is to restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the
nation's estuaries and coastal watersheds by protecting and enhancing water quality and living
resources. Major areas of effort include: supporting coastal watersheds to enhance their efforts
to address threats to the health of estuary/coastal waters and coastal watersheds; supporting
continued implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) for
the 28 National Estuary Programs (NEPs); supporting NEP implementation of Clean Water Act
core programs to enhance protection and restoration of estuarine/coastal ecosystems, including
development and implementation of coastal ecosystem protection/restoration strategies and
action plans; supporting monitoring of estuarine, coastal, and marine waters; and partnering with
Federal/non-Federal entities to efficiently and effectively advance a wide range of estuary
protection/restoration efforts.
(See http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ for more information.)
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The resources in FY 2008 will support EPA's goal of improving the aquatic ecosystem health of
our national estuaries and coastal watersheds, and protecting and restoring additional acres of
habitat. Estuarine and coastal waters are among the most environmentally and economically
valuable resources in the nation. To protect and improve coastal water quality on a watershed
basis, EPA will focus its work with states, Tribes, coastal communities, and others on improving
the quality of our valuable estuarine and coastal resources. The health of coastal waters and
progress in meeting NEP/Coastal Watershed strategic targets will be tracked through periodic
issuance of a National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR). The NCCR is a collaborative effort
involving EPA and other Federal and state agencies.
EPA, working with state and local partners, will continue to develop the third NCCR, which is
due in 2008. The NCCR is the only statistically-significant measure of U.S. coastal water quality
on a nationwide scale and includes measures of coastal water quality, sediment quality, benthic
condition, and fish tissue contamination. The PART improvement plan calls for a long-term
improvement in the national score for aquatic ecosystem health of coastal waters of 0.2 points by
EPM-261
-------
2008. This is expected to result in an overall improvement in the quality of the coastal
environment based on indicators such as increased dissolved oxygen, reduction in nitrogen and
phosphorus, greater water clarity, reduction in sediment contaminants, healthier benthic
communities, increased acres of habitat, and reduced contamination in targeted fish and shellfish
species.
In addition, EPA will support monitoring of coastal and estuarine waters using such tools as the
Ocean Survey Vessel (CSV) Bold. In FY 2008, the CSV Bold will continue to support
monitoring and assessment needs in EPA Regions and coastal states. It is available to support
monitoring and assessment needs on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts and in the Caribbean.
EPA will continue partnership opportunities to assist local land-use decision-makers by
providing information necessary to plan for growth and minimize the adverse impacts of
development. The Agency also will emphasize the need to anticipate the cumulative
environmental impacts of growth in coastal watersheds.
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 2008. EPA
will support a limited number of activities to implement the Action Plan, potentially including
sub-basin teams and/or special studies to identify highest opportunity watersheds for nutrient
reductions.
Within the NEP, EPA plans to continue to support1 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, including conducting fiscal and programmatic
oversight.
• Supporting efforts to achieve the EPA habitat restoration and protection goal of 250,000
additional acres by 2012.
• Providing targeted support to special ecosystems, including those with statutorily-
authorized protection programs such as the Long Island Sound.
Despite the likelihood that future opportunities for habitat restoration and protection will be more
limited than they have been thus far, the PART improvement plan calls for EPA to set ambitious
long-term and annual acreage targets for the NEPs and their partners. EPA has done this by
raising the target for the next few years. Population growth and increased pressure on coastal
resources present significant challenges to habitat improvements.
1 The means and strategies outlined here for achieving Sub-objective 4.3.1 must be viewed in tandem with the
means and strategies outlined under Goal 2, Objective 2, Sub-objective 2.2.2, Improve Ocean and Coastal Waters.
Sub-objective 2.2.2 contains strategic measures forEPA'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-262
-------
Information on coastal ecological condition generated by the NCCR can be used by resource
managers to efficiently and effectively target water quality actions and manage those actions to
maximize benefits. We are moving toward a national and Regional set of measures to make the
data more useful to managers. 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 U.S. 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.
We have improved our NEP implementation review program to make it more objective and
consistent. This will make it more useful in future funding decisions as well as future PART
evaluations.
This program was included in OMB's PART assessment, Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary
Protection, completed in 2005 and was rated "adequate." The National Estuary Program/Coastal
Watersheds and the Marine Pollution Control programs were combined and reviewed under this
PART review. As a result of the PART evaluation, the program has improved its NEP data
reporting and tracking system. The program will be testing the system in FY 2006 and 2007, and
will revise it as necessary in FY 2008. The program will also be developing more ambitious
targets for its annual and long-term measures regarding the number of acres protected and
restored.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Program dollars per
acre of habitat
protected or restored.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
505
FY 2008
Target
500
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Acres protected or
restored in NEP study
areas.
FY 2006
Actual
140,033
FY 2006
Target
25,000
FY 2007
Target
75,000
FY 2008
Target
50,000
Units
Acres
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,533.6) This will reduce funding for grants to the NEPs by 18 percent, representing a
reduction of support for NEP Plan implementation, including monitoring, outreach and
convening stakeholders. This level of funding will allow the NEP program to continue
protecting and improving coastal waters and achieving performance targets.
• (+$238.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$80.0) EPA will undertake an independent evaluation of the implementation of the
National Estuary Program.
EPM-263
-------
• (-$0.5) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (+$ 1.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-4.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This will reduce EPA
technical support to the NEPs at the local level. These reductions will not impede
Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; Clean
Water Act; Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990;
North American Wetlands Conservation Act; Water Resources Development Act (WRDA); 1909
The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA); 1987
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; 1987 Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances;
1996 Habitat Agenda; 1997 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Bi-national Toxics Strategy; Coastal
Wetlands Planning; and U.S.-Canada Agreements.
EPM-264
-------
Wetlands
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$19,842.5
$19,842.5
140.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$20,992.2
$20,992.2
147.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$21,518.0
$21,518.0
147.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$525. 8
$525.8
-0.6
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 our partners, EPA ensures a sound and consistent approach to wetlands protection.
Major activities of the Wetlands Protection Program include administration of EPA's role in the
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Wetlands Regulatory Program; development and
dissemination of rules, 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 building the capacity of state and local programs. (See
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/ for more information.)
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Administration has set the stage for a growing commitment to a regulatory program aimed at
no net loss of wetlands and voluntary programs to increase wetland acreage. Approaches include
public, private, regulatory, and non-regulatory initiatives and partnerships to restore, improve,
and protect the nation's wetlands. In his 2004 Earth Day address, the President announced a
renewed effort to move beyond a policy of no net loss to achieve an overall increase in the
nation's wetland resources over the next five years. To achieve this goal, the Administration will
work through six Federal agencies to restore, improve, and protect at least three million acres of
wetlands by 2009.
EPM-265
-------
In FY 2008, 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 as well as
geo-locating 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. 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. EPA will continue to focus on wetland and
stream corridor restoration to regain lost aquatic resources, and strengthening state and Tribal
wetland programs to protect vulnerable wetland resources. EPA will continue to administer
Wetland Program Development Grants, with a continued focus in FY 2008 on state/Tribal
wetlands environmental outcomes.
Two recent reports document progress in reducing wetland loss and increasing wetland
restoration in the U.S. The 2006 National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends Report,
released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), reports the quantity and type of wetlands
in the conterminous United States. The report shows that overall gains in wetland acres
exceeded overall losses from 1998 through 2004 at a rate of 32,000 acres per year. This gain is
primarily attributable to an increase in unvegetated freshwater ponds, which may have varying
functional value. Additionally, wetland data provided in a report titled Preserving America's
Wetlands, Implementing the President's Goal (CEQ, April 2005), indicates that 1,797,000 acres
have been restored, created, protected or improved since April 2004.
Performance Targets:
This program has not been reviewed under the PART process.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$524.1) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE and
recalculation of base workforce costs.
• (-$0.7) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (+$2.4) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-0.6 FTE) Redirection to support for Chesapeake Bay nutrient reduction, which includes
wetlands and riparian restoration and collaboration.
EPM-266
-------
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
Bi-national Toxics Strategy; and U.S.-Canada Agreements.
EPM-267
-------
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
EPM-268
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$3,593. 8
$3,593.8
8.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,653.9
$2,653.9
7.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,830.0
$2,830.0
7.7
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$176.1
$176.1
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.
Beaches Program
The Beaches Program protects human health by reducing exposure to contaminated recreational
waters. Agency activities include: 1) issuing guidance to improve beach monitoring and public
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 recreational waters; and 4) providing publicly accessible Internet-based information about
local beach conditions and closures. (See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ for more
information.)
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)
EPM-269
-------
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 Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) have issued a joint advisory concerning eating fish and shellfish.
Mercury contamination of fish and shellfish occurs locally, as well as in ocean-caught fish, and
at higher levels causes adverse health effects, especially in children and infants.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will:
Beaches Program:
• Work with states and Tribes to implement the latest, scientifically defensible pathogen
criteria for fresh waters.
• 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.
Fish/Shellfish Programs:
• Continue to work with the 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 technical support to states in the operation of their monitoring
programs and on acceptable levels of contaminant concentrations, and in states'
development and management offish advisories.
• 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.
• Continue to reduce total blood mercury concentrations through ongoing work with FDA
on joint guidance issued to the public, and by encouraging and supporting the states'
implementation of their fish advisory programs through such measures as the National
Forum on Contaminants in Fish and publishing the National Listing of Fish Advisories.
EPM-270
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of women
of childbearing age
having mercury levels
in blood above the
level of concern.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
5.5
Units
Percent
Women
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of state-
monitored shellfish-
growing acres
impacted by
anthropogenic sources
that are approved or
conditionally approved
for use.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
65-85
Units
Percent
Areas
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Maintain the number of
waterborne disease
outbreaks attributable
to swimming in or
other recreational
contact with coastal
and Great Lakes waters
measured as a 5-year
average.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
2
Units
Outbreaks
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 2006
Actual
97
FY 2006
Target
94
FY 2007
Target
95
FY 2008
Target
96
Units
Percent
Days/Season
EPM-271
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$79.8) This increase provides funds for a program evaluation of state implementation
of the BEACHES grants.
• (+$96.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$0.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
CWA and the BEACH Act of 2000.
EPM-272
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$90,252.9
$3,101.9
$93,354.8
581.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$99,121.0
$3,243.1
$102,364.1
583.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$96,967.0
$3,416.0
$100,383.0
584.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,154.0)
$172.9
($1,981.1)
0.2
Program Project Description:
EPA's Drinking Water 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 public water 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Safe drinking water and clean surface waters are critical to protecting human health. More than
280 million Americans rely on the safety of tap water provided by public water systems that are
subject to national drinking water standards.1 In FY 2008, EPA will continue 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. As a result of these efforts, the Agency will ensure
that 90 percent of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water
that meets all applicable health-based standards.
Drinking Water Implementation:
In FY 2008, the Agency will continue implementing 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 work with States as they begin to apply for primacy for the LT2 and
Stage 2 rules in FY 2008. EPA also will assist states in implementing public health requirements
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED),
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html.
EPM-273
-------
for high-priority drinking water contaminants including the Arsenic Rule and revised Lead and
Copper Rule. The expected number of Arsenic Rule non-compliers was reduced by half within
one year of the compliance deadline. The Agency will build on this success by continuing
collaboration with our state partners and focusing on simultaneous compliance strategies. In
order to facilitate compliance with these new rules, as well as existing rules, EPA will:
• Carry out the drinking water program where EPA has primacy (e.g., Wyoming, the
District of Columbia, and Tribal lands), and where states have not yet adopted new
regulations.
• Continue to provide guidance, training (including webcasts), and technical assistance to
states, Tribes, laboratories and utilities on the implementation of drinking water
regulations, especially the Ground Water Rule and revised Lead and Copper Rule. EPA
will promote operation and maintenance best practices to small systems in support of long
term compliance success with existing regulations.
• Support states with technical reviews of public water system submissions required for the
Stage 2 rule in 2008. EPA will work directly with systems in states that are not
conducting early implementation of the LT2/Stage 2 rules (a subset of a universe of over
4,000 systems).
• Support states in their efforts to provide technical, managerial, and financial assistance to
small systems to improve their capacity to consistently meet regulatory requirements
through the use of cost-effective treatment technologies, proper disposal of treatment
residuals, and compliance with contaminant requirements, including monitoring under the
arsenic and radionuclides rules and rules controlling microbial pathogens and disinfection
byproducts.
• Improve the quality of data in the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) by
continuing 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. Also, the Agency will support a database for the Underground
Injection Control program.
• Carry out on-going oversight programs for categorical grants (e.g., Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS), Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), Underground
Injection Control (UIC)).
Drinking Water Standards:
In FY 2008, the Agency will continue to collect and evaluate information on drinking water
contaminants and their health risks. The Agency will use this information to make risk
management decisions based upon sound science to address public health threats posed by these
contaminants. The Agency will continue to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act and other
processes to evaluate and address drinking water risks including:
EPM-274
-------
• Development of the third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) identifying drinking water
contaminants which may require regulation. This list will be the first developed using a
comprehensive, risk based, reproducible methodology recommended by the National
Academies of Science and the National Drinking Water Advisory Council.
• Completing the decisions to regulate (or not regulate) at least five of the contaminants
on the second CCL.
• Collecting data on the frequency and level of occurrence of 25 unregulated
contaminants in public water systems through implementation of the second
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.
• Developing analytical methods that can be utilized by laboratories across the U.S. to test
for the presence of new and emerging contaminants in drinking water.
• Collaborating with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine public
health protection effects of risk management strategies for drinking water
contamination, including waterborne disease.
• Evaluating new information on health effects, occurrence, and other information for
regulated contaminants to determine what if any revisions are appropriate under the
National Primary Drinking Water Rule Six Year Review.
• Consulting with stakeholders to develop revisions to the Total Coliform Rule and
additional requirements for water distribution systems as appropriate to maintain or
provide for greater public health protection.
• Identify and implement the appropriate actions to address the long term issues identified
in the national review of the Lead and Copper Rule. Long term issues that could be
addressed include the effectiveness of partial lead service line replacement and
effectiveness of lead and copper sampling requirements.
Sustainable Infrastructure:
EPA's sustainable infrastructure initiative is based on four pillars - better management, full-cost
pricing, water efficiency and the watershed approach — which support the Administrator's
priorities. EPA's DWSRF provides states with funds for low-interest loans to assist utilities with
financing drinking water infrastructure needs. EPA will work with states to encourage targeting
this affordable, flexible financial assistance to support utility compliance with safe drinking
water standards and also will work with utilities to promote full-cost pricing as a critical means
to meet infrastructure needs and ensure compliance. The Agency continues to implement a
multi-faceted DWSRF management strategy to ensure effective oversight of these funds and
optimization of program outcomes. The Agency also will be producing in 2008 the Drinking
Water Infrastructure Needs Survey report to Congress. EPA conducted the third Drinking Water
Needs Survey in 2003. The survey documents 20-year capital investment needs of public water
systems that are eligible to receive Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) monies —
approximately 53,000 community water systems and 21,400 not-for-profit non-community water
systems. The survey reports infrastructure needs that are required to protect public health, such
as projects to ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). As directed by the
SDWA, EPA uses the results of the survey to allocate DWSRF funds to the states and Tribes.
EPM-275
-------
EPA will further contribute to sustainable infrastructure initiative through partnership-building
activities, including the Agency's capacity development and operator certification work with
states and efforts with leaders in the drinking water utility industry to promote asset management
and the use of watershed-based approaches to manage water resources. The Agency also will
engage states and other stakeholders to facilitate the voluntary adoption of best practices by
drinking water utilities.
Source Water Protection:
EPA will continue supporting state and local efforts to identify and address potential sources of
drinking water contamination. These efforts are integral to the utility efforts in the sustainable
infrastructure leadership initiative because source water protection can reduce the need for
expensive drinking water treatment, which, in turn, can reduce the demand side for sustainable
infrastructure.
In FY 2008, the Agency will:
• Continue to work across EPA and with other Federal agencies to increase awareness of
source water protection for better management of significant sources of contamination.
• Continue to work with national, state, and local stakeholder organizations and the multi-
partner Source Water Collaborative to encourage broad-based efforts directed at
encouraging actions at the state and local level to address sources of contamination
identified in source water assessments.
• 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.
• Direct National UIC Program efforts to protect underground sources of drinking water by
establishing priorities, developing guidance, measuring program results,, and
administering the state and Tribal assistance grants.
• Manage, through the UIC program, potential new waste streams that will use
underground injection, including residual waste from desalination and other drinking
water treatment processes.
• Work in concert with resources from the EPA Air and Radiation program and with the
Department of Energy to support the safe deployment of carbon capture and storage
(geologic sequestration) as a climate mitigation strategy; develop technical guidance
and/or regulations to ensure that wells injecting carbon dioxide do not endanger
underground sources of drinking water.
• Carry out responsibilities in permitting current and future geologic carbon sequestration
projects. Activities planned for FY 2008 include:
EPM-276
-------
o More targeted data collection through Department of Energy pilot projects and
industry efforts to demonstrate and commercialize geologic sequestration
technology;
o Engaging states and stakeholders through meetings, workshops, and other
avenues, as appropriate; and
o Research on key issues and gaps. There are many complex technical questions
that must be answered in order to develop an appropriate regulatory framework
that is fully protective of human health and the environment, and ensures that
underground sources of drinking water are not placed at risk.
This program completed a PART review in 2006 and achieved an adequate rating. The measures
and targets below were modified through the PART process in FY 2008. The PART'S
improvement plan requires that EPA continue to work towards developing a long-term outcome
performance measure to assess the public health impacts of improvements in drinking water
compliance, continue to improve the overall quality of the data in EPA's drinking water
compliance reporting system, and revise the current drinking water small system affordability
methodology to address negative distributional impacts.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent population
served by CWS that
receive drinking water
that meets all
applicable health-based
DW standards through
approaches including
effective treatment and
source water
protection.
FY 2006
Actual
89
FY 2006
Target
93
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
90
Units
Percent
Population
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of community
water systems that
have undergone a
sanitary survey within
the past three years
(five years for
outstanding
performance.)
FY 2006
Actual
94
FY 2006
Target
98
FY 2007
Target
98
FY 2008
Target
95
Units
Percent
Systems
EPM-277
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of person
months during which
community water
systems provide
drinking water that
meets all applicable
health-based standards.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
95
Units
Percent
Person
Months
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent community
water systems that
provide drinking water
that meets all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards.
FY 2006
Actual
89.4
FY 2006
Target
93
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
89.5
Units
Perrent
Systems
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3,117.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$34.3) This is an administrative correction to travel funds, redirecting resources from
the Surface Water Protection program.
• (-$85.0) This request redirects $85.0 to the same program within the S&T appropriation.
This change is an administrative correction for fixed costs associated with the Cincinnati
Technical Support Center.
• (-$112.5) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative systems.
• (-$107.8) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or
contracts management services.
• (-$5,000.0) This change reflects the completion of major drinking water system
modernization efforts. In addition, the program plans to reduce development and
implementation of assistance tools, updated cost models and analytic methods in order to
fund higher priority activities.
• (-$3.1) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
EPM-278
-------
• (+$2.3) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (+0.2 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This increase is for direct
implementation of the PWSS program in order to maintain the existing levels of
performance for systems that meet drinking water standards.
Statutory Authority:
SOW A; CWA.
EPM-279
-------
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
EPM-280
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$10,846.3
$10,846.3
46.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,462.4
$12,462.4
43.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$12,851.0
$12,851.0
43.7
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$388.6
$388.6
0.0
Program Project Description:
The goals of the marine pollution programs are to ensure marine ecosystem protection by
controlling point-source and vessel discharges, managing dredged material and ocean dumping,
developing regional and international collaborations, monitoring ocean and coastal waters, and
managing other sources of pollution, such as marine debris and invasive species.
Major areas of effort include:
• 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.
• Monitoring coastal and ocean waters for baseline and trends assessment (e.g., Gulf of
Mexico hypoxic zone).
• Supporting international marine pollution control with other Federal agencies through
negotiations of international standards that address invasive aquatic species, harmful
antifoulants, bilge water, and marine debris.
• 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.
(See http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/index.html for more information.)
FY 2008 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 work with states, Tribes,
interstate agencies, and others on improving the quality of our valuable ocean resources. The
EPM-281
-------
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, a cooperative project with
other Federal agencies.
In FY 2008 the Ocean Survey Vessel (OSV) Bold will continue to support monitoring and
assessment needs in EPA Regional office and coastal states. It is available to support monitoring
and assessment needs on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts and in the Caribbean. During
2008, the Bold is expected to support the following types of activities: collection of
environmental data from several offshore areas for use in their designation of dredged material
disposal sites (such as in Long Island Sound); periodic environmental monitoring of 10 to 20 of
the 64 active 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 2008 that focus on ocean and coastal waters and are
critical to improving these waters are:
Reducing Vessel Discharges
• Enhance controls of pollutant discharges from vessels.
• EPA is assessing the need for additional standards for sewage and graywater discharges
from large cruise ships operating in Alaska.
• Work with the Department of Defense (DoD) to finalize discharge standards for Armed
Forces vessels (i.e., complete development of the seven discharge standards for the first
phase of the project and continue development of standards for the remaining
discharges).
• Continue assessing program success in reducing sewage discharges from vessels.
Managing the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) / Ocean Dumping
Program (including Dredged Material)
• Monitor active dredged material ocean dump sites to ensure achievement of
environmentally acceptable conditions reflected in Site Management Plans.
• Continue managing the ocean dumping vessels database.
• As co-chair of the National Dredging Team (NDT), in conjunction with the Army Corps
of Engineers and EPA Regions, create a tracking system for beneficial use of dredged
materials (as an alternative to dumping in ocean or coastal waters).
EPM-282
-------
Managing Invasive Species
• Work with the U.S. Coast Guard to develop a Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) that supports a proposed USCG rule for ballast water discharge
standards.
• Work with the USCG in the development of guidelines under the International Maritime
Organization's Ballast Water Management Convention.
Reducing Marine Debris
• Work with other members of the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee to
implement an action plan for assessing and reducing marine debris.
Vessels Used as Artificial Reefs
• Continue to participate in the review of clean-up plans for individual Navy and Maritime
Administration vessel-to-reef projects.
Contributing to the Health of Coral Reefs
• Participate on the U. S. Coral Reef Task Force.
• Assist in the development of biological assessment methods and biological criteria for
use in evaluating coral reef health and associated water quality.
Supporting International Marine Pollution Control
• Continue working to ensure that U.S. policy and procedures are consistent with the
London Convention of 1972 and its 1996 Protocol.
• Participate on the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of MARPOL (The
Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
From Ships, 1973) to develop international standards and guidance within the MARPOL
Convention.
This program was included in OMB's PART assessment, Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary
Protection, completed in 2005 and was rated "adequate."
A key effort of the Marine Pollution Program is managing the ocean dumping program. As a
follow-up action to the Oceans and Coastal Protection Program PART review in 2005 and to
improve the performance of the Marine Pollution Program, a new strategic plan measure was
developed for the ocean dumping program for FY 2008. On an annual basis, EPA Regional
offices will determine whether dredged material ocean dump sites are achieving environmentally
acceptable conditions, as defined by each the individual Site Management Plan. Should a site not
achieve acceptable conditions, corrective actions will be taken by the appropriate parties.
EPM-283
-------
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 2006
Actual
Data
Available
in 2008
FY 2006
Target
2.7
FY 2007
Target
2.8
FY 2008
Target
2.8
Units
Scale Score
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
By 20 11, at least
maintain aquatic
ecosystem health on
the "good/fair/poor"
scale of the National
Coastal Condition
Report in the Northeast
Region.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
1.8
Units
Scale Score
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
By 20 11, at least
maintain aquatic
ecosystem health on
the "good/fair/poor"
scale of the National
Coastal Condition
Report in the Southeast
Region.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
3.8
Units
Scale Score
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
By 20 11, at least
maintain aquatic
ecosystem health on
the "good/fair/poor"
scale of the National
Coastal Condition
Report in the West
Coast Region.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
2
Units
Scale Score
EPM-284
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
By 20 11, at least
maintain aquatic
ecosystem health on
the "good/fair/poor"
scale of the National
Coastal Condition
Report in the Puerto
Rico Region.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
1.7
Units
Scale Score
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Active dredged
material ocean
dumping sites will
have achieved
environmentally
acceptable conditions
(as reflected in each
site's management
plans.)
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
95
Units
Percent Sites
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$391.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$0.5) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (-$1.9) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget Request.
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; NEPAt, 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 the
Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000
EPM-285
-------
Surface Water Protection
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality; Enhance Research to Support Clean and Safe Water
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$188,306.1
$188,306.1
1,104.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$191,587.2
$191,587.2
1,103.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$196,092.0
$196,092.0
1,101.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$4,504.8
$4,504.8
-2.0
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 EPA's
Strategic Plan by implementing core clean water programs, including innovations that apply
programs on a watershed basis, and accelerating efforts to improve water quality on a watershed
basis.
EPA focuses its work with states, interstate agencies, Tribes and others in key areas, including:
water quality criteria and standards, effluent guidelines, cooling water intake regulations,
analytical methods, water quality assessment and monitoring, national water quality data
systems, watershed management planning, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), nonpoint source pollution programs, and
effectively managing infrastructure assistance programs. EPA also is responsible for producing
the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS), and for management and oversight of the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Water quality criteria and standards provide the scientific and regulatory foundation for water
quality protection programs under the CWA. They are used to define what waters are clean and
what waters are impaired, and thereby, serve as benchmarks for decisions about allowable
pollutant loadings into waterways. (See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ for more information.)
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to support state and Tribal programs by providing scientific
water quality criteria information, including developing or improving criteria for nutrients and
pathogens in ambient water. EPA will work with 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 87 percent of state submissions will be approvable in FY 2008.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue the monitoring initiative that began in 2005. EPA will provide
technical support to states, Tribes, and other partners participating in national statistically valid
EPM-286
-------
surveys of lakes and rivers. In FY 2008, lakes data analysis will be completed. A report on
baseline conditions in lakes will be issued in 2009. Sampling for a statistically-valid survey of
river conditions will begin in FY 2008. EPA will support states and Tribes in implementing their
comprehensive monitoring strategies, including development of efficient scientifically valid tools
to assist in monitoring and assessing their waters. These efforts will help provide the data and
information needed for sound management of the nation's waters.
In FY 2008, 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, which are critical
tools for meeting water restoration goals. Watershed plans and TMDLs will focus control and
restoration efforts on pollutants from point sources and runoff from nonpoint sources. States and
EPA have made significant progress in the development and approval of TMDLs (cumulatively
over 20,000 completed through FY 2006) and expect to develop over 2,500 TMDLs in 2008.
Protection of water quality on a watershed basis requires a careful assessment of the nature and
sources of pollution, their location and setting within the watershed, their relative influence on
water quality, and their amenability to preventive or control methods. In FY 2008 EPA will
support efforts of states, Tribes, other Federal agencies, and local communities to develop and
implement watershed-based plans that successfully address all of these factors to enable impaired
waters to be restored by implementing the national nonpoint source program. The nonpoint
source program is key to addressing most of the remaining water quality problems. In FY 2008,
EPA will provide program leadership and technical support by:
• Creating, supporting, and promoting technical tools that states need to accurately assess
water quality problems; analyze and implement solutions.
• Implementing a new web-based tool to support watershed planning.
• Enhancing accountability for results through the use of a newly-released nonpoint source
program tracking system which will continue to track all pollutant load reductions
achieved by each project. The system also will allow EPA to better track waters fully
restored by 319-funded projects by relating Section 319 project 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. LID is a
new, comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of
maintaining and enhancing the pre-development water quality and flow in urban and
developing watersheds.
• 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.
EPM-287
-------
In FY 2008, 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 control of billions of pounds of
pollutants. In 2008 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 health of
the NPDES program; continue to address workload concerns in permit issuance; and focus
limited resources on priority permits that have the greatest benefit for water quality. (See
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/per.cfm for more information.)
• Advance program innovations, such as watershed permitting and trading.
• Implement strategies to improve management of pretreatment programs.
• Issue a plan that describes the CWA-mandated annual review of industrial categories to
determine if new or revised effluent guidelines are warranted.
• Develop effluent regulations for discharges from airport deicing facilities and from
construction and development activities.
New Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) rules were developed in 2003 and were
finalized in 2007 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 an NPDES
permit, and that CAFOs have the tools and information needed to prevent discharges. In
addition, EPA will monitor the number of facilities covered by stormwater and CAFO permits.
EPA will work with NPDES authorities to ensure that 90 percent of all permits and 95 percent of
priority permits are current.
EPA will continue to implement a Sustainable Infrastructure Strategy focused around four key
principals or "pillars" - Better Management, Water Efficiency, Full Cost Pricing, and the
Watershed Approach. The Agency will work with its partners to facilitate the voluntary
adoption of best management practices in wastewater asset management, innovations, and
efficiency. The long-term goal of these partnerships is focused on improving water quality and
supporting sustainable wastewater utilities that are able to maximize the value of clean water
infrastructure support by improving system performance at the lowest possible cost. Water use
efforts include the water-efficiency market enhancement program, WaterSense, announced in
April 2006, which will give consumers a reference tool to identify and select water-efficient
products with the intent of reducing national water and wastewater infrastructure needs by
reducing demands and flows, allowing for deferred or downsized capital projects. In April 2006,
EPA issued draft specifications for three water-efficient service categories (certification
programs for irrigation system auditors, certification programs for irrigation system designers,
and certification programs for irrigation system installation and maintenance professionals) and
one product category (residential High-Efficiency Toilets or HETs).
EPM-288
-------
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to assess the viability of specification development for additional
product and service categories including faucets, showerheads, irrigation controllers, soil
moisture sensors, medical devices (e.g., steam sterilizers), landscape management, and drip
irrigation. EPA is developing criteria for water-efficient new homes to serve as a benchmark and
spur water-efficiency in construction of new homes. EPA also plans to pilot test a promotional
campaign for HETs with a major retailer and utility partners in a targeted geographical area. In
addition, the Agency plans to work with the Alliance for Water Efficiency to promote water
conservation and efficiency.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRFs) (see the CWSRF program/project narrative)
provides 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.
• Linking projects to environmental results through the use of water quality and public
health data.
• Maintaining the excellent fiduciary condition of the funds.
• Continuing to support states efforts in developing integrated priority lists to address
nonpoint source pollution, and estuary protection and wastewater projects.
In FY 2008, the Agency will conduct the CWNS. The CWNS reports on publicly-owned
wastewater collection and treatment facilities, facilities for control of sanitary sewer overflows
(SSOs), combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and other activities. The information is used to
produce a Report to Congress which provides an estimate of clean water needs for the United
States. The Agency also will provide oversight and support for over 3,000 congressionally
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.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of waterbody
segments identified by
States in 2002 as not
attaining standards,
where water quality
standards are now fully
attained (cumulative).
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
1,100
Units
Number of
Segments
EPM-289
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
submissions of new or
revised water quality
standards from States
and Territories that are
approved by EPA.
FY 2006
Actual
89
FY 2006
Target
90.9
FY 2007
Target
85
FY 2008
Target
87
Units
Percent
Submissions
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of high priority
EPA and state NPDES
permits that are
reissued on schedule.
FY 2006
Actual
98.5
FY 2006
Target
95
FY 2007
Target
95
FY 2008
Target
95
Units
Percent
Permits
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Loading (pounds) of
pollutants removed per
program dollar
expended.
FY 2006
Actual
233
FY 2006
Target
233
FY 2007
Target
285
FY 2008
Target
366
Units
Pounds
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of TMDL's
required that are
established or
approved by EPA on a
schedule consistent
with national policy
(cummulative).
FY 2006
Actual
23,185
FY 2006
Target
20,501
FY 2007
Target
25,811
FY 2008
Target
28,401
Units
TMDLs
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of waters
assessed using
statistically valid
surveys.
FY 2006
Actual
54
FY 2006
Target
54
FY 2007
Target
54
FY 2008
Target
54
Units
Percent
Waters
This program was included in OMB's PART assessment, Surface Water Protection, completed in
2005 and was rated "moderately effective." This program is working on followup actions to: (1)
develop state grant templates for reporting state performance; (2) assess 100% of river, lakes,
EPM-290
-------
and steams; and (3) develop water quality reports on statistically-valid surveys of wadeable
streams.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$6,317.1) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$190.0) EPA will conduct a program evaluation of the Nonpoint Source Grant
programs implemented by the States.
• (+$268.6) This increase reflects a redirection of workforce support from the Great Lakes
National Program Office.
• (-$112.5) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative systems.
• (-$130.4) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or
contracts management services.
• (-$3.8) This is part of an Agencywide effort to reduce travel, including international
travel.
• (-$34.3) This is an administrative correction to travel funds, redirecting resources to the
Drinking Water Protection program.
• (-$2,000.0) This reduction reflects completion of key deliverables for chemical data flow
in transition from the existing STORET data management system to the Exchange
Network-based data warehouse called the Water Quality Exchange (WQX). It also
reflects a decision to delay development of data entry tools for small users, of data
extraction and analysis tools, and of data standards for biological and toxicity data.
• (+$10.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-2.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
EPM-291
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2008 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 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Inspector General
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Inspector General
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$36,501.5
247.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$35,100.0
267.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$38,008.0
287.7
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$2,908.0
20.0
Program Projects in IG
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Subtotal, Audits, Evaluations, and
Investigations
Subtotal, Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
FY 2006
Actuals
$36,501.5
$36,501.5
$36,501.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$35,100.0
$35,100.0
$35,100.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$38,008.0
$38,008.0
$38,008.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$2,908.0
$2,908.0
$2,908.0
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 2006
Actuals
$36,501.5
$13,243.5
$49,745.0
335.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$35,100.0
$13,316.0
$48,416.0
361.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$38,008.0
$7,149.0
$45,157.0
331.8
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$2,908.0
($6,167.0)
($3,259.0)
-30.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, investigative,
inspection, and public liaison services that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General Act,
as amended, by promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the operations of the
Agency's programs. OIG activities add value and enhance public trust by providing the Agency
and Congress with independent analyses and recommendations that help resolve management
challenges and identify best practices for efficiently and effectively accomplishing EPA's
environmental goals and safeguarding 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.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA OIG will assist the Agency in its efforts to reduce environmental and human health
risks by helping to improve program operations, save taxpayer dollars, and resolve major
management challenges. In FY 2008, the OIG will identify high risk areas and make
recommendations to mitigate those risks, leading to positive environmental impacts and the cost
effective attainment of EPA's strategic goals. Issues relating to voluntary programs, protection of
drinking water, clean air technologies, healthy communities, environmental compliance and
enforcement, information technology investments, and grants and contracts will increasingly
become integrative elements of OIG work.
IG-3
-------
Audits and Evaluations
Air
Evaluations will focus on areas such as the development of cost-effective strategies for
controlling fine particulate matter (PM2 5) in non-attainment areas, and the use of partnerships
and voluntary programs and initiatives to more efficiently achieve clean air goals, leverage other
available resources, and ensure healthy communities and ecosystems. The OIG will also
evaluate the Agency's efforts to address risks to the public from indoor air pollution, such as
radon.
Water
Evaluations will determine how EPA can cost effectively achieve water quality goals, including
the extent that the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act programs are integrated and
working together toward EPA's strategic Clean and Safe Water goal and the National Estuary
Program's (NEP) effectiveness in improving the overall aquatic health of the 28 estuaries in the
NEP. Additional efforts will seek to determine the effectiveness of the Agency's efforts to
protect human health from exposure to contaminants in beach water and to evaluate
methodologies for identifying emerging water contaminants that pose a threat to health and the
environment.
Land
Land evaluations will include efforts to assess the outcomes and effects of EPA's voluntary
approaches for product stewardship, infrastructure development and encouragement of
environmentally responsible behaviors designed to lead to waste or chemical reduction and
increased recycling
Cross-Media
EPA has taken steps to use partnership programs and innovative approaches to encourage
voluntary actions as a complement to regulation. The OIG will critique these approaches so that
the Agency can do more of what does work and avoid what is ineffective. Such evaluations may
include how well EPA utilizes the results of its research and development activities, protects its
personnel and infrastructure that are critical to ensuring its ability to respond to terrorist
incidents, and implements management innovations to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness
of its various regulatory compliance tools.
Good Government
Audits will focus on whether EPA: 1) human capital, assistance agreements and contracts are
efficiently and effectively administered to accomplish the Agency's mission; 2) information
technology projects are being effectively planned and managed and systems have cost-effective
controls to provide timely, accurate, complete, useful, and secure financial and performance data
for decision making and accountability; and 3) financial statements are fairly presented. A
IG-4
-------
significant portion of audit resources will be devoted to mandated work involving the financial
statements of EPA, the information security practices of EPA required by the Federal
Information Security Management Act, and financial audits of costs claimed by recipients of
EPA assistance agreements conducted pursuant to the Single Audit Act. Discretionary work will
involve audits of: 1) costs claimed by assistance agreement recipients; 2) grant and contract
administration, including whether such funding instruments result in cost effective products and
services supporting EPA's strategic goals; and 3) the usefulness, accuracy, and reliability of
EPA's data and performance measures.
Investigations
The OIG will conduct investigations and seek prosecution of criminal activity and serious
misconduct in EPA programs and operations that undermine Agency integrity 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 relating to payments made by EPA for erroneous environmental
testing data and results that could undermine the bases for EPA decision-making, regulatory
compliance, and enforcement actions; 4) intrusions into and attacks against EPA's network, as
well as incidents of computer misuse and theft of intellectual property; and 5) release of or
unauthorized access to sensitive or proprietary information. In addition, the OIG assists 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 actual attack, the OIG
would initiate the appropriate investigative response to identify the intruder; coordinate with
state, local, and other Federal law enforcement authorities; coordinate with the Agency to protect
information and resources; increase awareness of fraud indicators; and create a network of
potential resources.
Public Liaison
Public liaison work will continue to address critical public and governmental concerns. This
activity involves responding to requests from the public, Congress, EPA employees, or other
government entities for information and responses to complaints or allegations of fraud, waste,
abuse, or mismanagement in EPA programs. To accomplish this work, the OIG 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:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Criminal, civil,
administrative, and
fraud prevention
actions.
FY 2006
Actual
121
FY 2006
Target
80
FY 2007
Target
80
FY 2008
Target
70
Units
Actions
IG-5
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Environmental and
business actions taken
for improved
performance or risk
reduction.
FY 2006
Actual
407
FY 2006
Target
303
FY 2007
Target
318
FY 2008
Target
291
Units
Actions
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Return on the annual
dollar investment, as a
percentage of the OIG
budget, from audits
and investigations.
FY 2006
Actual
1,100
FY 2006
Target
150
FY 2007
Target
150
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Environmental and
business
recommendations or
risks identified for
corrective action.
FY 2006
Actual
1,024
FY 2006
Target
925
FY 2007
Target
955
FY 2008
Target
805
Units
Recommendati
ons
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,424.9) This reflects: 1) a transfer of payroll resources from the OIG's Superfund
resources to increase the range of issues on which the OIG can focus its audits,
investigations, and evaluations; and 2) an increase for cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$623.8) This reflects an increase to account for inflation related to non-payroll
resources, such as travel, contracts, and Working Capital Fund.
• (-$140.7) This decrease reflects the transfer of oversight of Defense Contract Audit
Agency services to OARM.
• (+20.0 FTE) This increase reflects a transfer of resources from the OIG's Superfund
resources, to increase the range of issues on which the OIG can focus its audits,
investigations, and evaluations.
Statutory Authority:
Inspector General Act, as amended; Government Management Reform Act; Reports
Consolidation Act; Single Audit Act; and Pesticides Registration Improvement Act; CFO Act;
RCRA; FFMIA; FISMA; FQPA.
IG-6
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2008 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 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Building and Facilities
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Building and Facilities
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$41,672.2
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$39,816.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$34,801.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($5,015.0)
0.0
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 2006
Actuals
$10,800.9
$30,871.3
$30,871.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$11,385.1
$28,430.9
$28,430.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$7,870.0
$26,931.0
$26,931.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($3,515.1)
($1,499.9)
($1,499.9)
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 2006
Actuals
$8,845.1
$3,013.8
$10,800.9
$534.7
$23,194.5
3.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,268.9
$2,079.0
$11,385.1
$594.2
$20,327.2
3.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,345.0
$594.0
$7,870.0
$594.0
$15,403.0
3.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$76.1
($1,485.0)
$3,575.7;
($0.2)
($4,924.2)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program involves activities to ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and that certain physical security measures are in place to help safeguard staff in the event of an
emergency, protecting the capability of EPA's vital infrastructure assets. The program also
includes protecting national security information (NSI) through construction and build-out of
secure access facilities (SAFs) and sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIFs),
protecting the personnel security clearance process, and protecting any classified information.
The work under the Building and Facilities appropriation supports larger physical security
improvements to leased and owned space.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Agency will continue to implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive
(HSPD) 12 (i.e., the Smart Card Directive) through upgrading or replacing physical access
control systems and the ancillary infrastructure at five to eight EPA facilities nationwide.
Additionally, we will continue installing blast resistant glass materials or procuring and installing
laminated glass windows at our Security Level 3 and 4 facilities, as well as facilities housing
critical infrastructures. The EPA will also continue to mitigate vulnerabilities in accordance with
the Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal
Facilities guidelines at its 191 facilities nationwide. Finally, the Agency will ensure new
construction, new leased, and major modernization projects meet Federal physical security
requirements; expand or realign existing laboratories for homeland security support activities;
and protect critical infrastructures under HSPD 7.
B&F-3
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Changes from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,515.1) This reduction reflects substantial progress in completing initial vulnerability
mitigations at EPA's most vulnerable facilities, allowing for a reduction in the pace of
physical security upgrades and vulnerability assessments.
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 2006
Actuals
$336,980.6
$8,841.7
$30,871.3
$769.6
$366.1
$66,365.6
$444,194.9
375.1
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 2008
Pres Bud
$303,728.0
$73,859.0
$26,931.0
$901.0
$490.0
$74,956.0
$480,865.0
415.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$8,967.9
$3,619.5
($1,499.9)
($15.8)
($9.3)
$1,011.3
$12,073.7
-22.7
Program Project Description:
Facilities activities in the Buildings and Facilities Appropriation include design, construction,
repair and improvement projects costing over $85 thousand. Funds may be used for buildings
occupied by EPA, whether federally owned or leased.
FY 2008 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 meet the Federal
Facility environmental objectives of Executive Orders related to efficient building management
practices. Efforts will include implementing the findings of comprehensive facility energy
audits, sustainable building design in Agency construction and alteration projects, and the use of
off-grid energy equipment, energy load reduction strategies, and Energy Star rated buildings.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,499.9) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained as a result of improved building
management practices.
B&F-6
-------
Statutory Authority:
FPASA; PBA; Annual Appropriations Act; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive
Orders 10577 and 12598; Homeland Security Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical
Infrastructure Protection).
B&F-7
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2008 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 4
Radiation: Protection 5
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations 7
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations 8
Program Area: Compliance 11
Compliance Assistance and Centers 12
Compliance Incentives 14
Compliance Monitoring 16
Program Area: Enforcement 19
Civil Enforcement 20
Criminal Enforcement 22
Enforcement Training 25
Environmental Justice 27
Forensics Support 29
Superfund: Enforcement 32
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement 37
Program Area: Homeland Security 39
Homeland Security: Communication and Information 40
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection 41
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 43
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 46
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach 48
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations 49
Exchange Network 51
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 53
Information Security 54
IT / Data Management 56
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review 60
Alternative Dispute Resolution 61
Legal Advice: Environmental Program 63
Program Area: Operations and Administration 65
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management 66
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 68
Acquisition Management 71
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan: 71
Human Resources Management 73
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 75
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems 77
Human Health Risk Assessment 78
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection 81
Research: Land Protection and Restoration 82
Program Area: Research: Sustainability 86
Research: Sustainability 87
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup 88
Superfund: Emergency Response and Removal 89
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness 92
Superfund: Federal Facilities 94
Superfund: Remedial 99
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies 103
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Hazardous Substance Superfund
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$1,340,168.4
3,164.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,258,955.0
3,297.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,244,706.0
3,205.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($14,249.0)
-91.5
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
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
FY 2006
Actuals
$1,938.3
$13,243.5
$11.0
$156.5
$914.4
$1,081.9
$785.4
$8,611.7
$568.9
$638.6
$3,600.9
$161,995.4
$9,117.9
$185,318.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,323.3
$13,316.0
$22.2
$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
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,373.0
$7,149.0
$22.0
$144.0
$1,182.0
$1,348.0
$884.0
$9,167.0
$840.0
$757.0
$2,310.0
$161,610.0
$9,843.0
$185,411.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$49.7
($6,167.0)
($0.2)
$1.3
$37.9
$39.0
$1.0
$664.8
$218.1
$0.3
($1,874.2)
($2,040.5)
($353.9)
($3,384.4)
Superfund-1
-------
Program Project
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
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic
Review
FY 2006
Actuals
$100.4
$100.4
$77.7
$907.4
$985.1
$39.2
$0.0
$40,360.8
$40,400.0
$534.7
$42,020.2
$35.4
$1,883.6
$1,919.0
$341.0
$16,646.2
$16,987.2
$559.4
$624.6
$1,184.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$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
$887.2
$690.8
$1,578.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$198.0
$1,659.0
$1,857.0
$10,527.0
$6,064.0
$28,689.0
$45,280.0
$594.0
$47,731.0
$155.0
$1,433.0
$1,588.0
$792.0
$16,338.0
$17,130.0
$837.0
$606.0
$1,443.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($300.0)
($300.0)
$0.0
$285.4
$285.4
($1,744.3)
($3,436.0)
$685.4
($4,494.9)
($0.2)
($4,509.7)
$24.6
$0.6
$25.2
$3.4
($782.4)
($779.0)
($50.2)
($84.8)
($135.0)
Superfund-2
-------
Program Project
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, Brownfields Projects
Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
FY 2006
Actuals
$2,752.7
$66,365.6
$19,577.1
$5,282.1
$21,783.7
$115,761.2
$3,604.4
$22,210.2
$4,628.0
$26,838.2
$292.0
$205,038.7
$11,115.1
$32,461.2
$667,056.2
$4,989.0
$9,319.5
$9,319.5
$929,979.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$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
$0.0
$822,918.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,049.0
$74,956.0
$24,645.0
$5,036.0
$24,306.0
$131,992.0
$3,972.0
$20,081.0
$0.0
$20,081.0
$0.0
$191,880.0
$9,318.0
$31,879.0
$584,836.0
$6,575.0
$0.0
$0.0
$824,488.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$128.2
$1,011.3
$1,130.7
($234.2)
($1,234.8)
$801.2
$124.8
($1,882.9)
$0.0
($1,882.9)
$0.0
($518.9)
$454.9
$392.4
$3,241.1
($2,000.4)
$0.0
$0.0
$1,569.1
Superfund-3
-------
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality
Superfund-4
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$11,301.6
$2,311.9
$1,938.3
$15,551.8
95.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,648.6
$2,054.3
$2,323.3
$15,026.2
96.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,186.0
$2,120.0
$2,373.0
$14,679.0
88.6
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($462.6)
$65.7
$49.7
($347.2)
-8.0
Program Project Description:
This program addresses potential radiation risks found at some Superfund sites. 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 National Priority List (NPL) and non-NPL sites.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA's National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) and
Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) will continue to provide
analytical support to manage and mitigate radioactive releases and exposures. Both labs
routinely provide analytical and technical support for the characterization and cleanup of
Superfund and Federal Facility sites. Laboratory support focuses on providing high quality data
to support Agency decisions at sites across the country. In addition, both labs provide data
evaluation and assessment, document review and field support through on-going fixed and
mobile capability. Thousands of radiochemical and mixed waste analyses (NAREL is EPA's only
laboratory with in-house mixed waste analytical capability) are performed annually at NAREL
on a variety of matrices from contaminated sites. R&IE also provides field-based analytical
capability for screening and identifying radiological contaminants at NPL and non-NPL sites
across the country, including mobile scanner van and air sampling equipment and personnel.
Performance Targets:
EPA is on track through its ongoing work to meet its 2011 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. EPA is developing new
outcome-oriented strategic and annual performance measures for this program in preparation for
Superfund-5
-------
a 2007 PART assessment. The program will have new performance measures to report in FY
2009. EPA will continue to track progress on routine program indicators such as preparedness
and response capability for radiological incidents.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$49.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$0.7) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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 2006
Actuals
$36,501.5
$13,243.5
$49,745.0
335.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$35,100.0
$13,316.0
$48,416.0
361.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$38,008.0
$7,149.0
$45,157.0
331.8
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$2,908.0
($6,167.0)
($3,259.0)
-30.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, investigative, inspection,
and public liaison services that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General Act, as amended,
by promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the operations of the Agency's
Superfund program. OIG activities add value and enhance public trust by providing the Agency
and Congress with independent analyses and recommendations that help resolve management
challenges and identify best practices for efficiently and effectively accomplishing EPA's
environmental goals and safeguarding resources. They also result in the prevention, detection,
and prosecution of financial fraud, laboratory fraud, and cyber crime.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPA OIG will assist the Agency in its efforts to reduce environmental and human health
risks by helping to improve Superfund program operations, save taxpayer dollars, and resolve
major management challenges. In FY 2008, the OIG will emphasize the themes of
accountability, risk reduction, data integrity, leveraging resources, and land preservation,
restoration and reuse, leading to positive results and the attainment of EPA's strategic goals.
Audits and Evaluations
OIG audits and evaluations will determine if EPA is making progress toward efficiently and
effectively reducing human health risks; taking effective enforcement actions; cleaning up
hazardous waste; restoring previously polluted sites to appropriate uses; and ensuring long-term
stewardship of polluted sites. The OIG will evaluate how effective EPA and other Federal
agencies have been at addressing and resolving human health and environmental risks at
facilities on the National Priorities List and other sites that are supported by Superfund resources.
Superfund-8
-------
The OIG will continue to review: 1) EPA's management of Superfund special accounts, actions
on closing accounts, and other actions to improve management of these accounts; 2) progress
and challenges in achieving new GPRA goals for "sites ready for reuse" and ensuring long-term
stewardship at sites; 3) prevention of future Superfund sites through effective implementation of
prevention programs such as RCRA and other EPA authorities; 4) the basis for needs
determinations and allocation of Superfund resources; and 5) cost recoveries from responsible
parties. The OIG will also evaluate ways to maximize results achieved from its Superfund
contracts and assistance agreements.
Investigations
OIG investigations include efforts to uncover criminal activity pertaining to the Superfund
program. The OIG 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
that undermine the integrity of or confidence in the Superfund program and create imminent
environmental or human heath risks; 3) false claims for erroneous laboratory results that
undermine the basis 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 OIG will assist EPA in testing environmental information technology infrastructure
and information networks against threats of intrusion or destruction.
Public Liaison
Public liaison work will continue to address 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 for information and responses to complaints or
allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement in EPA's Superfund program. To
accomplish this work, the Inspector General (IG) 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 strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,424.9) This reflects a transfer of payroll resources to the IG appropriation in order
to increase the range of issues on which the OIG can focus its audits, investigations,
and evaluations.
• (-$2,882.8) This reflects a decreased emphasis on Superfund-related activities based on
historical work trends.
Superfund-9
-------
• (-$859.3) This decrease reflects the transfer of Defense Contract Audit Agency services
and oversight to OARM.
• (-20.0 FTE) This reflects a transfer of resources from the OIG's Superfund resources to
increase the range of issues on which the OIG can focus its audits, investigations, and
evaluations.
• (-30.0 FTE) This reflects a decreased emphasis on Superfund-related activities based on
historical work trends.
Statutory Authority:
Inspector General Act, as amended; SARA; CERCLA; TSCA.
Superfund-10
-------
Program Area: Compliance
Superfund-ll
-------
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$27,774.3
$481.3
$257.8
$11.0
$28,524.4
197.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$28,890.7
$839.1
$280.2
$22.2
$30,032.2
212.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,547.0
$688.0
$291.0
$22.0
$30,548.0
208.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$656.3
($151.1)
$10.8
($0.2)
$515.8
-3.7
Program Project Description:
The Compliance Assistance and Centers 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, efficient means for putting them into practice. To achieve these
goals, the Compliance Assistance and Centers (CAC) 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.1
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to provide general and targeted compliance assistance to the
regulated community and integrate assistance into its enforcement and compliance assurance
efforts. Superfund-related compliance assistance activities are mainly reported and tracked
through the Agency's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). In FY 2008, 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.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
1 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html: www.epa.gov/clearinghouse:
and www.assistancecenters.net.
Superfund-12
-------
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
Performance Targets:
EPA's Compliance Assistance Program achieves pollutant reductions, improves 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.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$0.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CERCLA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
Superfund-13
-------
Compliance Incentives
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$8,338.9
$156.5
$8,495.4
68.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$9,702.2
$142. 7
$9,844.9
76.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,786.0
$144.0
$9,930.0
74.6
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$83.8
$1.3
$85.1
-2.0
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).l
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Compliance Incentives program (CIP) 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.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
1 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/programs/index.html.
Superfund-14
-------
Performance Targets:
EPA's Compliance Incentive programs encourage regulated entities to monitor and quickly
correct environmental violations to achieve pollutant reductions, and improvements in regulated
entities environmental management practices. 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 actions2. 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 Environmental Programs & Management section
of this report. The Agency is exploring methodologies to strengthen the measure by analyzing
the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may entail analysis of pollutant hazards and
population exposure.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$0.4) This reflects a minor reduction to compliance incentives program.
• (+$1.7) 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; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
2 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
Superfund-15
-------
Compliance Monitoring
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$86,635.1
$914.4
$87,549.5
614.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$93,018.8
$1,144.1
$94,162.9
632.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$93,428.0
$1,182.0
$94,610.0
629.5
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$409.2
$37.9
$447.1
-2.5
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 by conducting compliance inspections/evaluations, investigations, record
reviews, and information requests, and by responding to tips and complaints from the public.
The program conducts these activities to determine whether conditions that exist may present
imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment and to verify
whether regulated sites are in compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
The Superfund portion of the Compliance Monitoring program focuses on providing information
system support for monitoring compliance with Superfund-related environmental regulations and
contaminated site clean-up agreements. The program will also ensure the security and integrity
of its compliance information systems.
FY 2008 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 2008, 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.
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 in
FY 2008. This site provides communities with information on compliance status. EPA will
continue to develop additional tools and data for public use. ECHO is a valuable tool, averaging
about 65,000 queries per month.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
Superfund-16
-------
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
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 2006
Actual
890
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
550
Units
Million
pounds
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of
concluded enforcement
cases requiring that
pollution be reduced,
treated, or eliminated.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
FY2008
FY 2006
Target
30
FY 2007
Target
30
FY 2008
Target
30
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of
concluded enforcement
cases requiring
implementation of
improved
environmental
management practices.
FY 2006
Actual
82
FY 2006
Target
65
FY 2007
Target
70
FY 2008
Target
70
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. 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 actions1. 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.
1 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
Superfund-17
-------
Although the estimated pollution reductions, resulting from enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown over the past five years, these pollutant reductions are projections 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.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3.8) The enforcement program has invested effort to re-host the Integrated Data
Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system on a less costly mainframe platform, which the
program expects will allow reductions in the cost of IDEA operations.
• (+$39.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$2.0) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR; NEPA.
Superfund-18
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
Superfund-19
-------
Civil Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$118,560.9
$1,759.1
$785.4
$121,105.4
936.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$120,777.7
$1,826.3
$883.0
$123,487.0
958.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$126,645.0
$2,065.0
$884.0
$129,594.0
969.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$5,867.3
$238.7
$1.0
$6,107.0
10.6
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 posed by environmental violations. The program works with the Department
of Justice to ensure consistent and fair enforcement of Superfund-related environmental laws and
regulations. The program aims to level the economic playing field by ensuring that violators do
not realize an economic benefit from noncompliance and seeks to deter future violations. The
Civil Enforcement program develops, litigates, and settles administrative and civil judicial cases
against serious violators of environmental laws.l
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Financial assurance requirements are intended to 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 selected financial responsibility under both the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) as an enforcement program priority
beginning in FY 2006. Placing more emphasis on financial responsibility will facilitate timely
cleanup 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.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
1 For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/index.html:
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/backgnd.htm.
Superfund-20
-------
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
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. One of the key Civil Enforcement PART program measures, pounds of pollutant
reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution as a result of enforcement actions2. The
Agency is exploring methodologies to strengthen 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 five years, these pollutant reductions are projections based on
settlement agreements entered each fiscal year. One or two cases can have a significant affect on
the end-of-year results. Work under this program supports the compliance and environmental
stewardship objective to improve compliance.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$0.1) 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.
• (+$1.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CERCLA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA; SBLRBRERA; PPA; CERFA; AEA; UMTRLWA.
2 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
Superfund-21
-------
Criminal Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$41,595.6
$8,611.7
$50,207.3
270.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$37,793.5
$8,502.2
$46,295.7
270.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,688.0
$9,167.0
$48,855.0
268.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,894.5
$664.8
$2,559.3
-1.9
Program Project Description:
The Criminal Enforcement program investigates and helps prosecute violations of Superfund and
Superfund-related laws which seriously threaten public health and the environment and which
involve intentional, deliberate or criminal behavior on the part of the violator. The Criminal
Enforcement program 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 such 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 requests that cases be
prosecuted. Where appropriate, it helps secure plea agreements or sentencing conditions that
will require defendants to undertake projects to improve environmental conditions or develop
environmental management systems to enhance performance. The Agency is involved in all
phases of the investigative process 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 EPA 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.1
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 other types of "high impact" cases that affect human
health, the environment, and enhance compliance and deterrence. The Criminal Enforcement
1 For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/index.html.
Superfund-22
-------
program will continue to enhance its collaboration and coordination with the Civil Enforcement
program to ensure that the enforcement program as a whole responds to violations as effectively
as possible. That is effectuated by co-locating key criminal and civil enforcement managers,
establishing a more effective regional case screening process to identify the most appropriate
civil or criminal enforcement responses for a particular violation, and by taking criminal
enforcement actions against long-term, or repeat significant non-compliers where appropriate.
Coordination will also be facilitated by focusing on parallel proceedings and other mechanisms
allowing us to use the most appropriate tools to address environmental violations and crimes.
EPA's Criminal Enforcement program is committed to fair and consistent enforcement of
Federal laws and regulations as balanced with the flexibility to respond to region-specific
environmental problems. Criminal enforcement has in place management oversight controls and
national policies to ensure that violators in similar circumstances receive similar treatment under
Federal environmental laws. Consistency is promoted by 1) evaluating all investigations from
the national perspective; 2) overseeing all investigations to ensure compliance with national
priorities; 3) conducting regular "docket reviews" (detailed review of all open investigations in
each EPA Regional office) to ensure consistency with investigatory discretion guidance and
enforcement priorities, and 4) developing, implementing, and periodically reviewing and
revising policies and programs.
In FY 2008, the program will use data from the Criminal Case Reporting System made available
through enhancements to be completed in FY 2007. Information associated with all closed
criminal enforcement cases 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 also will 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.
In FY 2008, the program also will seek to deter environmental crime by increasing the volume
and quality of leads reported to EPA by the public though the tips and complaints link. The web
link was established on EPA's homepage in FY 2006.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (criminal) PART program received an
"adequate" rating in 2004 with the addition of new outcome measures and the development of
measure implementation plans that set targets and milestones for these measures. Subsequently,
the program revised its Case Conclusion Data Sheet, conducted training, and issued the form to
begin collecting new data for the Criminal Enforcement PART measures. In FY 2006, EPA
established a performance baseline and target for the Pollution Reduction measure. In FY 2007,
the target for the Recidivism measure will be developed when the required information from the
separate criminal and civil enforcement data bases will be merged. In FY 2008, a baseline and
target for the Pollutant Impact measure will be developed using three years of collected data.
Superfund-23
-------
Performance Targets:
In FY 2008, 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, long-term trend analysis of 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" (the targets and baselines
were 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 compliance and environmental
stewardship objective. Currently, there are no performance measures specific to this program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$35.7 / -0.4 FTE) This reflects the consolidation of enforcement training resources that
will be moved to the National Enforcement Training Institute under the enforcement
training program/project.
• (+$700.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; EPCRA; Pollution Prosecution Act; Title 18 General Federal Crimes (e.g., false
statements, conspiracy); Power of Environmental Protection Agency (18 U.S.C. 3063).
Superfund-24
-------
Enforcement Training
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$2,655.2
$568.9
$3,224. 1
15.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,503.7
$621.9
$3,125.6
16.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,145.0
$840.0
$3,985.0
20.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$641.3
$218.1
$859.4
4.0
Program Project Description:
The Pollution Prosecution Act is the statutory mandate for the Agency's Enforcement Training
program that provides environmental enforcement and compliance 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 Superfund enforcement and compliance goals. Courses are provided to
lawyers, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators, and technical experts at all levels of
government.
NETI operates training facilities in Washington, D.C. and in Lakewood, CO. NETI also
maintains a training center on the Internet, "NETI Online," which offers targeted technical
training courses and the capability to track individual training plans. "NETI Online's"
clearinghouse of training information includes links to lists of course offerings, as well as tools
for Agency training providers to assist with developing managing, and evaluating the program's
training.l
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, NETI will develop and deliver training to address important gaps in Superfund-
related enforcement and compliance assurance knowledge and skills identified in needs
assessments and national strategic plans. The NETI advisory service will assist the Agency's
enforcement experts to develop course agendas and determine the most effective methods to
deliver quality training to the nation's enforcement professionals.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
For more information, please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html
Superfund-25
-------
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
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 2006
Actual
890
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
550
Units
million
pounds
One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions2. 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 five years, these pollutant reductions are projections based on the
settlement agreements entered during each fiscal year. One or two cases can have a significant
effect on the end-of-year results.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$56.6 / +1.2 FTE) This increase reflects the consolidation of a training function that is
being moved from the Superfund Enforcement and Criminal Enforcement programs and
into the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) located in the Enforcement
Training program.
• (+161.5) This increase reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; EPCRA; TSCA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR; NEPA.
2 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
Superfund-26
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$4,691.5
$638.6
$5,330.1
19.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,859.0
5756.7
$4,615.7
17.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,822.0
$757.0
$4,579.0
16.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($37.0)
$0.3
($36.7)
-1.0
Program Project Description:
The Environmental Justice (EJ) program addresses environmental and/or human health concerns
in all communities, including minority and/or low-income communities. Research has shown
that the minority segments and low-income segments of the population have been, or could be,
disproportionately exposed to environmental harm and risks.
The program also provides education, outreach, and data to communities, and facilitates the
integration of environmental justice considerations into Agency programs, policies, and
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.l
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 environmental 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.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to assist community-based organizations in developing solutions
to Superfund-related and other local environmental issues a part of the Environmental Justice
Small Grants program and the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving
Cooperative Agreement Program. Both programs have awarded more than 1,000 grants and
cooperative agreements to community-based organizations and other non-profit organizations.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
1 For more information on the Environmental Justice program, refer to:
www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaliustice/index.html.
Superfund-27
-------
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace older measures in the Plan.
Performance Targets:
EPA will measure the results from the Environmental Justice program by tracking the
cumulative number of communities with potential environmental justice concerns that achieve
significant measurable environmental or public health improvement through collaborative
problem-solving strategies.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$0.3) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
Executive Order 12898; CERCLA, as amended.
Superfund-28
-------
Forensics Support
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance; Enhance
Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$13,044.2
$3,600.9
$16,645.1
101.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$13,185.2
$4,184.2
$17,369.4
107.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,075.0
$2,310.0
$17,385.0
105.8
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,889.8
($1,874.2)
$15.6
-2.0
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 to provide 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.1
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Efforts to stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement in FY 2008 will include the
refinement of successful multi-media inspection approaches, use of customized laboratory
methods to solve unusual enforcement case problems, and 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 also will evaluate the scientific basis and/or
technical enforceability of select EPA regulations that may impact Superfund program activities.
In FY 2008, 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
For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/index.html.
Superfund-29
-------
techniques and laboratory analytical techniques, as well as identifying sources of pollution at
abandoned Superfund and other waste sites.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
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 2006
Actual
890
FY 2006
Target
450
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
550
Units
million
pounds
One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions2. The Agency is exploring methodologies to
strengthen 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, these pollutant reductions are projections based on settlement
agreements entered each fiscal year. One or two cases can have a significant effect on the end-
of-year results.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$352.6 / -7.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a transfer to NEIC's Science and Technology
budget reflecting a shift in NEIC workload from Superfund related projects to projects
which support other media.
• (-2.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
2 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
Superfund-30
-------
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
(-$50.0) This decrease will reduce available funding for laboratory equipment at the
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC).
(+$1.1) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
(-$1,472.7) 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.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; EPCRA.
Superfund-31
-------
Superfund: Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$161,995.4
$161,995.4
948.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$163,650.5
$163,650.5
1,000.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$161,610.0
$161,610.0
971.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,040.5)
($2,040.5)
-29.0
Program Project Description:
EPA negotiates cleanup and removal agreements with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) at
hazardous waste sites and, where negotiations fail, the Agency either takes enforcement actions
to require cleanup or expends Superfund Trust Fund dollars to remediate the sites. When EPA
uses Trust Fund dollars, 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, which are
sub-accounts within the Trust Fund. 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
the funds are 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 and provides 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 parties' 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 2008 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-32
-------
this approach, various Superfund reforms have been implemented to increase fairness, reduce
transaction costs, and promote economic redevelopment.l
Throughout FY 2008, 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 also will continue to ensure Trust Fund stewardship through cost recovery efforts that
include addressing 100 percent of past costs at sites where total past costs are equal to or greater
than $200,000 prior to the end of the statute of limitations period.
In FY 2008, the Agency will provide the DOJ with $24.9 million, 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 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. By pursuing cost recovery settlements, the program promotes the principle
that polluters should perform or pay for cleanups and preserves appropriated Trust Fund
resources to address contaminated sites which have no viable, liable PRPs. The Agency's
expenditures will be recouped through administrative actions, CERCLA section 107 case
referrals, and settlements reached with the use of alternative dispute resolution.
In FY 2008, 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.
During FY 2008, the Agency also will continue the financial management aspects 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 will continue 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 also will
continue to maintain the accounting and billing of Superfund oversight costs attributable to
responsible parties. These costs represent EPA's cost of overseeing Superfund site clean-up
efforts by responsible parties as stipulated in the terms of settlement agreements.
1 For more information about EPA's Superfund enforcement program, and its various components, refer to:
www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/.
Superfund-33
-------
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 that
protects the public health after construction of the physical remedy 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 which will support the
Superfund program. 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 2008, EPA will also continue to explore additional methods in its financial
services to achieve greater efficiency.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
Performance Targets:
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 2006
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
Superfund sites at
which settlement or
enforcement action
taken before the start
ofRA.
FY 2006
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
90
FY 2007
Target
95
FY 2008
Target
95
Units
Percent
Superfund-34
-------
One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions2. The Agency is exploring methodologies to
strengthen 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, these pollutant reductions are projections based on settlement
agreements entered each fiscal year. One or two cases can have a significant effect on end-of-
year results.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-6.1 FTE) This decrease reflects a change in EPA's workforce management strategy that
will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. This represents
a slight reduction in FTE that would support the activities under the Superfund
enforcement program.
• (-22.1 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities in EPA's Regional
offices. This net decrease is the result of funds being redirected to support mitigating
lead contamination and post construction activities in the response and remedial
program, inspection efforts, and Brownfields, homeland security, and Oil spills
enforcement projects.
• (-$2,800.0) This decrease in contractor support funding is based on the Agency's priority
setting process and its efforts to best align resources to meet critical mission objectives.
This reduction would reduce support the activities under the Superfund enforcement
program.
• (-$1,153.1) This decrease reflects a reduction to CERCLA litigation support provided
through an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Justice. The reduction is
based on the program's overall priority setting process and its efforts to best align
resources to meet critical mission objectives.
• (-$105.4) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$20.0 / -0.8 FTE) This decrease reflects a transfer of funds and FTE as part of
consolidation of a training function to the National Enforcement Training Institute
(NETI) under the enforcement training program/project.
• (+$230.0) This change reflects a technical correction between the Superfund
Enforcement and Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance program projects. This
2 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
Superfund-35
-------
resource increase to Superfund Enforcement more accurately reflects planned support for
Financial Management activities.
• (-$200.0) This decrease reduces contract support that would be used to support the
financial management aspects of Superfund cost recovery and collections.
• (+$2,006.3) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1.7) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; ERCLA;
SBLRBRERA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; PHSA; Safe Drinking Water Act; CCA;
FGCAA; FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations; FMFIA; FOIA; GMRA; IPIA; IGA; PRA;
Privacy Act; CFOA; Government Performance and Results Act; The Prompt Payment Act;
Executive Order 12241; Executive Order 12656.
Superfund-36
-------
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$9,117.9
$9,117.9
64.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,196.9
$10,196.9
81.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,843.0
$9,843.0
74.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$353.9)
($353.9)
-7.0
Program Project Description:
The Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program ensures that all Federal facility sites on
the National Priority List have interagency 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 enable the 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Act (CERCLA)
Section 120, EPA will enter into lAGs with responsible Federal entities to ensure protective
cleanup at a timely pace in FY 2008. EPA will also monitor milestones in existing lAGs, resolve
disputes, and oversee all remedial work being conducted at Federal facilities. EPA will also
continue its work with affected agencies to resolve outstanding policy issues relating to the
cleanup of Federal facilities.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
Superfund-37
-------
Performance Targets:
One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions1. 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
Restore Land and Improve Compliance, although currently no specific performance measures
exist for the program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-5.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction will reduce
the amount of FTE used for negotiating and enforcing interagency agreements with other
Federal agencies.
• (-2.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a realignment of FTE which support oversight in the
Federal Facility Response program. The decrease aligns FTE with the way the program
manages its sites by providing oversight at National Priority List Superfund sites.
• (-$358.4) 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:
CERCLA; SBLRBRERA; DBCRA; Defense Authorization Amendments; BRAC; PPA;
CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; PHSA; DRAA; SOW A; Executive Order 12241; Executive
Order 12656.
1 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
Superfund-38
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
Superfund-39
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$5,280.0
$100.4
$5,380.4
7.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,799.7
$300.0
$7,099.7
13.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,906.0
$0.0
$6,906.0
17.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$106.3
($300.0)
($193.7)
4.0
Program Project Description:
This program designs, develops, deploys and maintains EPA's rapid response infrastructure.
That infrastructure provides rapid access to communication tools (mobile phone access via high
speed Internet lines), accelerated transfers of data, models and maps to support response
activities (e.g., plume models and maps to determine the extent of contamination), and enhanced
staff access to all EPA data and Web resources.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Highlights:
EPA's FY 2008 resources in the Information Security and IT/Data Management programs will
continue to support the Agency's rapid response infrastructure.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$300.0) This reduction reflects successful deployment of the LAN-in-a-Box program to
mobile labs funded by this appropriation. LAN-in-a-Box equipped those mobile
laboratories with high speed, secure access to the Internet and EPA Wide Area Network.
Statutory Authority:
NCP; CERCLA; CWA; Homeland Security Act of 2002; Defense Against Weapons of Mass
Destruction Act (Title XIV of Public Law 104-201).
Superfund-40
-------
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$4,717.4
$13,306.1
$985.1
$19,008.6
47.1
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$7,242.7
$45,251.0
$1,571.6
$54,065.3
59.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$7,787.0
$25,586.0
$1,857.0
$35,230.0
59.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$544.3
($19,665.0)
$285.4
($18,835.3)
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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to focus on its goal to train all EPA criminal investigators in
"Hot Zone Forensic Evidence Collection" typically utilized at crime scenes involving weapons
of mass destruction as well as environmental crimes. 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.
Advanced crime scene processing training will also be provided to those EPA criminal
investigators assigned to the National Counter Terrorism Evidence Response Team (NCERT).
EPA criminal investigators will continue to provide environmental expertise for criminal cases
and support the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during select National Special
Security Events (NSSE) and in the event of a terrorist attack anywhere in the United States.
Additionally, EPA criminal investigators will provide more robust support, involving evidence
collection, to the BioWatch, Water Security Initiative and RadNet programs. During FY 2008, it
is anticipated that the number of NSSEs and other events to which EPA criminal investigators
are deployed will remain high.
Superfund-41
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$284.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1.0) This increase is for IT and telecommunications resources.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA as amended; EPCRA; FFSA; Pollution Prosecution Act.
Superfund-42
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$1,659.2
$32,692.8
$40,400.0
$74,752.0
148.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$3,328.7
$44,498. 1
$49,774.9
$97,601.7
165.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,381.0
$40,768.0
$45,280.0
$89,429.0
167.6
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$52.3
($3,730.1)
($4,494.9)
($8,172.7)
2.0
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 emergency response assets to
implement efficient and effective responses. Another priority for this program is improving
research, development and technical support for potential threats and response protocols.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, efforts to develop the capability described above will concentrate on four key areas:
1) 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) continuing to develop decontamination options, methods, and protocols to ensure that the
nation can quickly recover from nationally significant incidents; 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 (NAR) to
effectively manage EPA's emergency response assets during large-scale activations. EPA
activities in support of these efforts include the following:
Superfund-43
-------
• Participating at national events that require a heightened level of security. EPA estimates
it will pre-deploy its emergency response personnel and response assets to three such
national security events.
• Maintaining the skills of EPA's On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) through specialized
training, exercises and equipment. In FY 2008, EPA will strive to conduct training in
cluster locations in order to reach a greater audience. EPA will continue procurement of
high priority upgrades of specialized response equipment for OSCs.
• Continue to develop data portability tools for field responders. This includes full
integration of the decontamination portfolio in the emergency portal enabling users to
access the information online and download onto 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.
• Continue to establish a national environmental laboratory capability and capacity (known
as the Environmental Laboratory Response Network or eLRN) 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
Laboratory Networks, maintaining and updating a laboratory compendium of Federal,
state and commercial capabilities, and continuing to develop and maintain a chemical
surety program, including fixed and mobile assets. For the surety program, EPA will
purchase an additional Portable High-Throughput Integrated Laboratory Identification
System (PHILIS) unit to enhance mobile capabilities and continue to build state fixed
capacity through a competitive grant program.
• 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 of
national significance in an effective, nationally consistent manner.
• Continue to develop and validate environmental sampling, 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.
Superfund-44
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$655.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing and new
FTE.
• (+4.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities. This increase will improve
EPA Regional response capabilities, disaster planning, and preparedness for homeland
security incidents.
• (-$3,200 / -2.0 FTE) This reflects the basic funding level required to maintain the eLRN
and its coordination with existing laboratory networks and maintain a chemical surety
program at the Federal and state levels.
• (-$1,800.0) This decrease reflects a reduction to planned decontamination activities. The
Agency will modify its emergency response training strategy to reduce costs and at the
same time reach a larger audience; slow the pace of procuring field response equipment;
and make a minimal reduction to efforts to evaluate decontamination methods and
disposal options, although this reduction will not affect work already underway.
• (-$84.7) This reflects a reduction in program travel expenses.
• (-$64.9) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$0.3) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA Section 104, 105, 106; Clean Water Act; Oil Pollution Act.
Superfund-45
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$8,845.1
$3,013.8
$10,800.9
$534. 7
$23,194.5
3.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,268.9
$2,079.0
$11,385.1
$594.2
$20,327.2
3.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,345.0
$594.0
$7,870.0
$594.0
$15,403.0
3.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$76.1
($1,485.0)
($3,515.1)
($0.2)
($4,924.2)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program involves activities to ensure that EPA's physical structures and assets are secure
and operational and that certain physical security measures are in place to help safeguard staff in
the event of an emergency, protecting the capability of EPA's vital infrastructure assets. The
program also includes the personnel security clearance process, and protecting any classified
information.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency will continue to update its physical security vulnerability assessments and also
continue the mitigation of medium vulnerabilities at our most sensitive facilities. The Agency
will conduct exercises of Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans, activation of essential
personnel to the COOP site, and implementation of its mission essential functions from its
remote alternate site, including interagency operations. In FY 2008, 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 strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$0.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Superfund-46
-------
Statutory Authority:
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; CERCLA;
Public Law 104-12 (Nunn-Lugar II) National Response Plan; National Security Act of 1947, as
amended (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.).
Superfund-47
-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Superfund-48
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$48,586.7
$35.4
$48,622.1
389.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$52,142.7
$130.4
$52,273.1
381.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$49,747.0
$155.0
$49,902.0
379.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,395.7)
$24.6
($2,371.1)
-2.0
Program Project Description:
The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program also contributes to the mission of this
program by disseminating information about enforcement actions, compliance monitoring, and
the availability of compliance assistance. Some of the tools used to inform stakeholders include:
monthly Enforcement Alerts, regular news briefs about enforcement and compliance assistance
activities, and a website with easily accessible tools for retrieving information.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The emphasis and priority of the program is to provide the vision and leadership for the full
range of EPA's mission. In addition to headquarters efforts, the Regional Administrators and
their staffs continue to provide leadership to their respective regional offices and the states they
serve. These tools assist in building a greater understanding of CERCLA and Superfund related
issues for the enforcement program's many stakeholders.
In FY 2008, 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 role are critical to public support and to the Agency's success
in meeting its goals. The Agency will issue the following informational materials:
1) enforcement alerts, 2) accomplishments reports, 3) daily updating of the website, 4) weekly
news alerts, 5) specialized list-serves with periodic postings, and 6) news releases as Superfund
major cases are concluded.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
Superfund-49
-------
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$24.3) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$0.3) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
Annual Appropriations Act; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Enterprise for the Americas
Initiative Act; North America Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; RLBPHRA; NAAED;
LPA-US/MX-BR; CERCLA.
Superfund-50
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$18,725.7
$1,883.6
$20,609.3
23.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$16,048.5
$1,432.4
$17,480.9
24.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,364.0
$1,433.0
$16,797.0
24.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($684.5)
$0.6
($683.9)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program supports the development and maintenance of the Environmental Information
Exchange Network (the Exchange Network) with a focus on Superfund-related data. The
Exchange Network is an integrated information system using standardized data formats and
definitions to facilitate information sharing among EPA and its partners. The Exchange Network
provides a centralized approach to receiving, distributing, and accessing timely and reliable
environmental information. This program provides resources to develop, implement, operate and
maintain the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX, www.epa.gov/cdx), EPA's node on the
Exchange Network, which is the point of entry for data submissions to the Agency.
This 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 (E-Gov) 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the major focus is on fulfilling the Agency's E-Gov commitments and supporting
EPA's information technology initiatives. These activities build on efforts started in FY's 2004-
2006 to enhance the availability, quality and analytical usefulness of environmental information
for EPA and its partners and stakeholders. These efforts support data exchange by states, Tribes
and other partners through the use of the Exchange Network and the CDX, EPA's node on the
Exchange Network.
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 to facilitate decisions on
environmental and health issues. After FY 2007, all 50 states and approximately 10 tribes will
Superfund-51
-------
have nodes on the Exchange Network and will be mapping data to the new schemas so it can be
electronically submitted to EPA and shared with other partners. In FY 2008, EPA, states, Tribes,
and territories will continue to re-engineer data systems so information that was previously not
available, or not easily available, can be exchanged using common data standards and computer
language called schemas. These efforts will be closely coordinated with the Agency's program
offices and the system of data registries. As data flows are added, the broader use of data
standards, tools that check data before it is submitted, and reusable schemas will increase the
accuracy and timeliness of the data, improve analytical capabilities, and create savings through
economies of scale.
In addition, EPA will improve security by implementing electronic reporting standards that
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, Agency Architecture, and data management activities. Coordination
helps to ensure that necessary security measures are adhered to, system platforms follow the
Agency's Enterprise Architecture, and data management follows documented 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.
FY 2006
Actual
32
FY 2006
Target
29
FY 2007
Target
36
FY 2008
Target
43
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.
FY 2006
Actual
62,000
FY 2006
Target
47,000
FY 2007
Target
55000
FY 2008
Target
70000
Units
Users
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$0.6) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD & DAA; TSCA; FIFRA;
FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; CERCLA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA;
PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA.
Superfund-52
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
Superfund-53
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$4,198.5
$341.0
$4,539.5
8.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,562.1
$788.6
$6,350.7
15.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,583.0
$792.0
$6,375.0
15.8
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$20.9
$3.4
$24.3
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Information Security program protects the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of
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 operation and
maintenance of the ASSERT security documentation system.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 also to develop cost
effective solutions that support EPA's long-term goal of building analytical capacity. EPA also
will 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.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Federal
Information Security
Management Act
FY 2006
Actual
100
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
Units
Percent
Superfund-54
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
reportable systems that
are certified and
accredited.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$4.3) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$0.9) The decrease reflects expected efficiencies that will be achieved in infrastructure
support.
Statutory Authority:
FISMA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; PR; EFOIA.
Superfund-55
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$98,871.4
$4,412.9
$130.9
$38.8
$16,646.2
$120,100.2
515.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$96,807.2
$4,268.0
$175.9
$32.5
$17,120.4
$118,404.0
488.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$91,019.0
$3,499.0
$177.0
$34.0
$16,338.0
$111,067.0
488.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($5,788.2)
($769.0)
$1.1
$1.5
($782.4)
($7,337.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This 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 for the Superfund program. The program 1) implements the
Agency's (E-Gov) responsibilities; designs, develops and manages the Agency's Internet and
Intranet resources including the Integrated Portal, 2) supports the development, collection,
management, and analysis of environmental data (to include both point source and ambient data)
to manage statutory programs and to support the Agency in strategic planning at the national,
program, and regional levels; provides a secure, reliable, and capable information infrastructure
based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes data standardization, integration, and
public access, 3) manages the Agency's Quality System ensuring EPA's processes and data are
of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines, and, 4) supports regional information technology
infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs, and telecommunications. These
functions are integral to the implementation of Agency information technology programs and
systems like the Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX) and Permit Compliance
System (PCS). Agency offices rely on the IT/Data Management program and its capabilities to
develop and implement tools for ready access to accurate and timely data. Recent partnerships
include portals projects with the Offices of Research and Development and Air and Radiation to
access scientific and program data. The IT Data/Management program provides support to the
Agency-wide Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) program which is a structured,
integrated approach to managing IT investments. It ensures that all IT investments align with the
Superfund-56
-------
EPA mission and support business needs while minimizing risks and maximizing returns
throughout the investment's lifecycle. The CPIC relies on a systematic approach to IT
investment management in three distinct phases: select, control, and on-going evaluation, to
ensure each investment's objectives support the business and mission needs of the Agency.
Business cases and budget exhibits for all Agency major systems can be viewed at
http://www.epa.gov/oei/cpic/.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA's Information Technology community will continue focusing on the Agency's
Technology Initiative1 and fulfilling the Agency's E-Gov commitments. The Agency's
Superfund 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 in mid December calendar year 2007 in hard-copy and electronic forms.
In FY 2008, 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.
1 Office of Environmental Information's (OEI) FY 2006 Technology Initiative has three major components: 1) Building on its
Analytical Capacity and Indicators work, OEI will uncover and fill data gaps, and develop response capacity; 2) Using the portal
and Exchange Network, OEI will increase the integration of quality data, streamline transactions to foster collaboration, reduce
the data entry burden, and improve decision making; and 3) OEFs Readiness to Serve initiative will build capacity and
infrastructure to allow more EPA employees to telecommute or work safely and securely in the field.
Superfund-57
-------
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).
In addition to supporting key components of EPA's Technology Initiative, IT/Data Management
will continue to provide local program offices in the regions' critical support for hardware
requirements, software programming and applications, records management systems, data base
services, local area network activities, intranet web design, and desktop support. EPA's
environmental information needs require the Agency to ensure that it is keeping pace with the
states in the areas of data collection, management and utilization. Additionally, this program will
continue to focus on information security and the need for each 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.
EPA's E-Gov participation and contributions continue in FY 2008 with the coordination,
development and implementation of the Business Gateway, Geospatial One-Stop, and E-
Authentication. Key activities ensure that access to critical data (e.g., geospatial information,
federal regulations) is increased through the Geospatial One-Stop portal and the Business
Gateway and its Business Portal providing opportunities for collaboration and intergovernmental
partnerships, reducing duplication of data investments, and offering the public easy access to
important federal services for businesses.
IT/Data Management efforts are integral to the Exchange Network and Information Security
programs. Together these programs work to design, develop and deploy secure systems and
analytical tools to promote sound environmental decision-making.
In FY 2008, EPA expects savings from the first phase of the Network Optimization project effort
of key IT services and solutions. The services included in this effort include email services,
access to data files, telephone communications, and Enterprise Content Management System
(ECMS). The end result will be changes to the Agency's IT environment including the ability to
manage key IT services, use the power of competition to control costs in a highly competitive
environment, and hold vendors and contractors accountable for providing consistently excellent
services.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
Superfund-58
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$202.4) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1,000.0) This change reflects the Agency working to streamline IT consolidation. This
reduction is an aggregate estimate. The final distribution by program will be determined
when the Network Optimization Project is completed.
• (+$15.2) This increase reflects additional support for an agency-wide performance
measurement system.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD & DAA; TSCA; FIFRA;
FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA;
PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA.
Superfund-59
-------
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Superfund-60
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$1,004.4
$559. 4
$1,563.8
8.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,229.8
$887.2
$2,117.0
7.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,175.0
$837.0
$2,012.0
7.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($54.8)
($50.2)
($105.0)
-0.3
Program Project Description:
The General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$50.8) 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.
Superfund-61
-------
• (+$0.6) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-0.3 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
Superfund-62
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$35,237.7
$624.6
$35,862.3
238.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$37,525.5
$690.8
$38,216.3
249.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,366.0
$606.0
$39,972.0
247.2
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,840.5
($84.8)
$1,755.7
-2.6
Program Project Description:
The Agency's General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$85.3) This decrease reflects 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
cost.
• (+$0.5) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Superfund-63
-------
• (-0.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
Superfund-64
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Superfund-65
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$22,280.0
52,752.7
$25,032.7
186.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$21,847.0
$2,920.8
$24,767.8
163.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$23,439.0
$3,049.0
$26,488.0
177.5
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,592.0
$128.2
$1,720.2
14.2
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
grants and lAGs 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. Sound grants
management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs. A substantial
portion of the Superfund program is implemented through lAGs with the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Coast Guard.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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.1 The
Grants Management Plan has provided a framework for extensive improvements in grants
management at the technical administrative level, programmatic oversight level, and the
executive decision-making level 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 Agencywide training program for project officers, grant specialists, and managers.
' US EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-R-03-001, April 2003, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/fmakeport.pdf.
Superfund-66
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Change from the FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$240.3) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$112.1) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (+1.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The increase is also
attributed to the need to strengthen accountability in the grants process, and implement
new grants management policies in EPA's Regional Offices.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; FGCAA; Section 40 Code of
Federal Regulations, Parts: 30, 31, 35, 40, 45, 46, and 47.
Superfund-67
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$336,980.6
$8,841.7
$30,871.3
$769.6
$366.1
$66,365.6
$444,194.9
375.1
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 2008
Pres Bud
$303,728.0
$73,859.0
$26,931.0
$901.0
$490.0
$74,956.0
$480,865.0
415.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$8,967.9
$3,619.5
($1,499.9)
($15.8)
($9.3)
$1,011.3
$12,073.7
-22.7
Program Project Description:
Superfund resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Project are used to
fund rent, utilities, and security, and to manage activities and support services in many
centralized administrative areas at EPA. These include health and safety, environmental
compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring, fitness/wellness and safety, and
environmental management functions. 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with General Services Administration
(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) 131491 and 131232, Greening the Government through Federal
1 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3149.htm
2 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3123.htm
Superfund-68
-------
Fleet and Transportation Efficiency and Greening the Government through Efficient Energy
Management respectively. Additionally, the Agency will attain the EOs' 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 rated products and buildings.
EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by EO 13ISO3 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 strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$666.8) This decrease represents projected rent cost savings.
• (+$161.9) Provides additional resources for increases in utility costs.
• (-$45.8) This decrease represents projected security cost savings.
• (+$52.4) Provides additional resources for increases in transit subsidy.
• (+$134.3) Provides additional resources for increases in Regional moves.
• (+$158.6) Provides additional resources for increases in Regional laboratory operations
costs.
• (-$26.0) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (+$1,558.5) Provides additional resources to cover basic facilities management services
in EPA's ten Regional offices. These additional resources will go towards supporting
facility operations, environmental compliance, occupational health and safety and
fitness/wellness.
• (-$190.5) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
3 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
Superfund-69
-------
• (-$125.3) 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.
• (-1.2 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
FPASA; PBA; Annual Appropriations Act; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive
Orders 10577 and 12598; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
Superfund-70
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$23,040.8
$357.3
$19,577.1
$42,975.2
351.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,418.3
$360.8
$23,514.3
$49,293.4
357.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,992.0
$165.0
$24,645.0
$54,802.0
357.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$4,573.7
($195.8)
$1,130.7
$5,508.6
0.1
Program Project Description:
Superfund resources in this program support contract and acquisition management at
Headquarters, Regional Offices, Research Triangle Park and Cincinnati offices. Sound contract
management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs. 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 2008 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, and therefore an upgrade is not feasible. In FY 2008, EPA will continue
to implement its 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. The benefits of the new
system are: 1) program offices will be able to track the progress of individual actions, and 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 strategic objectives.
performance measures for this specific program project.
Currently, there are no
Superfund-71
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$882.1) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$900.0) This change reflects an increase over the FY 2007 increase, to support
development and deployment of the Agency's new Acquisition Management System. An
increase totaling of $3 million is requested ($2.1 million EPM and $900 thousand
Superfund) for FY 2008. 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).
• (-$1,131.5) This reduction is the result of efficiencies gained in Acquisition Management
through the streamlining and consolidation of contracting activities.
• (-$61.6) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (+$540.0) This increase provides OARM with funding for Defense Contract Audit
Agency (DCAA) Contract Services and oversight functions that were transferred from
OIG. The total provided for this activity is $1.8 million of which $1.26 million is in EPM
Acquisition Management.
• (+$1.7) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; contract law.
Superfund-72
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$42,966.8
$3.0
$5,282.1
$48,251.9
323.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$40,202.5
$3.0
$5,270.2
$45,475.7
297.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$40,175.0
$3.0
$5,036.0
$45,214.0
296.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($27.5)
$0.0
($234.2)
($261.7)
-1.3
Program Project Description:
Superfund resources in this program support activities related to the provision of human capital
and human resources management services for the entire Agency. Human Resources
Management resources are allocated to the Superfund appropriation based on the portion of
Superfund FTE requiring Human Resources Management services. EPA supports organizational
development and management activities through Agencywide 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA is committed to fully implementing Investing in Our People II, EPA 's Strategy for Human
Capital1', which was issued in December 2003, and updated in 2005 to reflect a focus on
obtaining measurable results. In FY 2008, the Agency will continue its efforts to implement a
Workforce Planning System:
• Closing competency gaps for Toxicology, Information Technology, Human Resources,
Grant and Contract specialist positions, as well as leadership positions throughout the
Agency.
• Finalizing a Strategic Recruitment Plan, significantly reducing the time to hire for senior
executives and reducing the overall number of vacancies for non-SES positions
processed beyond 45 days.
' US EPA Investing in OUR People II, EPA's Strategy for Human Capital. Available at http: //www.epa. go v/oarm/strategv .pdf
Superfund-73
-------
• Implementing innovative recruitment and hiring flexibilities that address personnel
shortages in mission-critical occupations.
In accordance with OMB Circular A-76 Implementation of the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform Act of 1998 the Agency will also build on competitive sourcing principles to identify
the most efficient and cost effective strategies for performing functions critical to the EPA
mission. Each of these activities will also support the Agency's President's Management
Agenda goals and objectives.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$12.5) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (+$94.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$315.7) This reduction is the result of efficiencies gained in Human Resources
Management through the consolidation and streamlining of workforce planning and
succession management activities.
Statutory Authority:
Title V USC, FAIR Act.
2 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/fair2002notice4.html
Superfund-74
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$70,768.6
$760.9
$21,783.7
$93,313.2
515.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$83,548.1
$1,014.8
$25,540.8
$110,103.7
537.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$74,960.0
$1,102.0
$24,306.0
$100,368.0
530.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($8,588.1)
$87.2
($1,234.8)
($9,735.7)
-7.7
Program Project Description:
EPA's financial management community maintains a strong partnership with the Superfund
program. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) recognizes and supports this
continuing partnership by providing a full array of financial management support services
necessary to pay Superfund bills and recoup cleanup and oversight costs for the Trust Fund.
OCFO manages Superfund budget formulation, justification, and execution as well as financial
cost recovery. OCFO also manages oversight billing for Superfund site cleanups (cost of
overseeing the responsible party's cleanup activities), Superfund cost documentation (the federal
cost of cleaning up a Superfund site), and refers delinquent accounts receivable and oversight
debts to the Department of Justice for collection.
(Refer to http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/functions.htm for more information).
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue efforts to modernize the Agency's financial systems and business processes.
Beginning in FY 2007 and continuing through 2008 and into 2009, the Agency will replace its
legacy accounting system and related modules with a new system certified to meet the latest
government accounting standards. This extensive modernization effort will reduce costs, and
comply with Congressional direction and new Federal financial systems requirements. This
work is framed by the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and will ensure 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 (PMA) scorecard
Superfund-75
-------
by providing more accessible data to support accountability, cost accounting, budget and
performance integration, and management decision-making.
In FY 2008, 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
PMA initiatives for improved financial performance.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific for this program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$790.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1,800.0) The funding level required for the Financial Replacement System (FinRS)
Capital Investment is expected to be lower in FY 2008, the second year of system
implementation. Final costs will not be known until after the contract procurement is
completed.
• (-$230.0) This change reflects a technical correction that shifts funds to the Superfund
Enforcement program from Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance.
• (-$0.7) This decrease reflects a shift from Superfund to correct regional workforce
support resource allocation.
• (+$5.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-1.1 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
Statutory Authority:
Annual Appropriations Act; CCA; CERCLA; CSA; E-Government Act of 2002; EFOIA; EPA's
Environmental Statutes, and the FGCAA; FAIR; Federal Acquisition Regulations, contract law
and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts 30, 31, 35, 40,45,46, 47); FMFIA(1982);
FOIA; GMRA(1994); IPIA; IGA of 1978 and Amendments of 1988; PRA; PR; CFOA (1990);
GPRA (1993); The Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5 USC.
Superfund-76
-------
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems
Superfund-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 2006
Actuals
$33,663.5
$3,604.4
$37,267.9
181.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$34,488.5
$3,847.2
$38,335.7
183.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$38,856.0
$3,972.0
$42,828.0
182.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$4,367.5
$124.8
$4,492.3
-1.8
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)1, 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 Strategy2, 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,
including scientific staff in the Superfund program and the regional offices. The MYPs outline
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris.
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Waste Research Strategy. Washington, D.C.: EPA. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/wastepub.pdf.
3 For more information, see 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
-------
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 published
scientific information to risk assessment needs is described in the HHRA MYP4.
In FY 2003, a Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory committee comprised
of qualified, independent scientists and engineers—subcommittee review found that the National
Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) has made several key advancements including
completion of a strategic plan, targeting cutting-edge risk assessments, improving the
proportionate representation of ecological assessments to human health assessments, enhancing
communication, and improving capabilities to provide environmental assessments resources in
response to September 11th. A subsequent BOSC subcommittee program review is scheduled for
September 2007.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008 the 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):
• Continuing to work toward the completion of 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 50 new or renewed Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV) at
the request of the Solid Waste and Emergency Response program, and providing health
hazard evaluations, reference doses/concentrations (RfD/Cs), and/or cancer slope factors
for priority pollutants to support Agency risk assessments (R&D Criteria: Quality,
Relevance, Performance);
» Providing an external review draft update of the Exposure Factors Handbook, collating
exposure information for use in Superfund site assessments (also supported by HHRA in
the Science and Technology appropriation; R&D Criteria: Relevance, Performance); and
• Providing technical support to Superfund site and program managers on human health
risk assessment through the Superfund Technical Support Centers.
In calendar year 2006, the Human Health Risk Assessment Program received a "moderately
effective" rating in its first PART review. This rating was supported by findings that the
program has long-term and annual performance measures with ambitious targets, as well as a set
of results indicating that the program is on track to meet its goals. As a follow-up to the PART,
the program must: (1) expand its efficiency measure to include all major work products; (2)
implement a new IRIS review process; (3) engage in regular, independent evaluations that assess
the program's effectiveness; and (4) investigate alternative approaches for measuring progress
' Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/HHRA.pdf.
Superfund-79
-------
related to providing timely, high quality scientific assessments. It also will be reviewed by a
BOSC subcommittee every three to four years, with mid-cycle reviews occurring midway
between the comprehensive reviews.
Performance Targets:
In 2008, the program plans to accomplish its goals of completing and delivering 100% of its
planned outputs in support of (1) Air Quality Criteria/ Science Assessment documents, (2)
human health risk assessments, and (3) HHRA technical support documents. Additionally, the
program plans to meet its efficiency goal of reducing the average cost to produce Air Quality
Criteria/ Science Assessment documents. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute
to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the
health of people, communities, and ecosystems.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$116.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$12.8) This is a technical adjustment to realign travel resources across the research
program to better reflect FY 2008 programmatic priorities. There will be no
programmatic impact.
• (-$4.6) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$0.3) This technical adjustment realigns workforce support costs (such as capital
equipment and repairs and improvement) across the research program to better reflect FY
2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (-0.1 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction reflects
efficiencies gained in EPA's Research and Development IT and administrative activities
and will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying
out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA.
Superfund-80
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
Superfund-81
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$12,101.5
$617.2
$828.4
$22,210.2
$35,757.3
141.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,552.8
$651.3
$903.1
$21,963.9
$34,071.1
142.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,737.0
$660.0
$901.0
$20,081.0
$32,379.0
141.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$184.2
$8.7
($2.1)
($1,882.9)
($1,692.1)
-1.5
Program Project Description:
The Land Research Program provides essential research to EPA's Solid Waste and Emergency
Response program and Regional Offices to enable them to accelerate scientifically defensible
and cost-effective decisions for cleanup at complex contaminated sites. Research areas include:
contaminated sediment, ground water, and multi-media. The research program also provides
site-specific technical support through EPA labs and centers, as well as liaisons located in each
Regional Office. As such, this program is a vital component of EPA's efforts to reduce and
control risks to human health and the environment.
Research within this program is responsive to the Superfund law requirements under Section
209(a) of Pub. L. 99-499, which 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." Research is guided by the long-term Waste Research
Strategy1, which was developed with participation from major clients and outlines research
needs and priorities. These research efforts are guided by the Land Multi-Year Plan (MYP)2
developed with input from across the Agency, which outlines 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 conducted under the
Human Health Risk Assessment program.
1 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Waste Research Strategy. Washington, D.C.: EPA. For more
information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/wastepub.pdf.
2 For more information, see 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 merged 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. The new plan will be posted when peer-review comments are
addressed in the second quarter of FY 2007.
Superfund-82
-------
The Land Protection and Restoration research program was reviewed by EPA's research
oversight body, the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), in FY 2006 (December 2005). The
BOSC found that the program generates high-quality products and conducts appropriately
focused multi-disciplinary research.
In addition, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) conducted an independent review of the
Contaminated Sites and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) multi-year plans in
2004 and released its final report in May 2005. The report is available on the EPA web site at
http://www.epa.gov/sciencel/pdf/contaminated_sites_rcra_sab-05-009.pdf. 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.
Suggestions from both the SAB review and the BOSC review are being incorporated into the
research program.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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). Specifically, EPA will continue work on an
evaluation of the long-term accuracy of upgraded contaminant transport and fate models in the
field. This work will be followed by:
• The development of new contaminated sediment fate and transport modeling capabilities
(completed during FY 2008).
• The development of a consensus framework for modeling remediation options in large
water bodies and estuaries (complete by FY 2009).
Documented remediation methods are needed for contaminated sediments for high-cost decisions
at controversial sites. One tool to improve the management of sediments is a report that EPA
will deliver in FY 2008 that will address data collection and model development for more
accurate prediction of dredging residuals. Future research in this area will depend on report
results. In addition, continuing through FY2010, EPA will develop a flux meter to evaluate
advective transport of contaminants, useful for designing permanent sediment remedies and
assessing achievement of the ground water environmental indicators.
In the ground water area, transport of contaminants in that medium and the subsequent intrusion
of contaminant vapors into buildings is a critical research issue for EPA's hazardous waste
remediation programs. Work is ongoing to develop reliable soil gas sampling methodologies and
to improve vapor intrusion modeling capability. A user guide for sampling soils contaminated
with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) will be completed in FY 2008.
Superfund-83
-------
In FY 2008, research products for Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) in ground
water will include: demonstration, evaluation and optimization of DNAPL remediation
technologies; assessment and prediction of the benefits of partial DNAPL depletion; and
development and assessment of integrated DNAPL source remediation methods. In addition,
reports on the remediation of inorganic plumes using permeable reactive barriers will be
produced.
EPA will continue to provide technical support to Superfund project managers via seven
technical support centers (TSCs) and two modeling assistance web sites 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 offices 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.
In 2006, the Land Protection and Restoration Research Program received an "adequate" rating in
its first PART review. EPA and OMB continue to work to finalize appropriate ambitious
performance measures, develop and implement a protocol for improved budget-performance
integration, and develop a new efficiency measure that captures the cost effectiveness of research
activities. To this end, OMB, EPA, and members of the BOSC formed a workgroup to discuss
long-term measurement of EPA's research and development programs. As part of the
workgroup, EPA has devised program-specific questions to be addressed by the BOSC and used
in support of long-term measurement. To identify appropriate outcome-oriented efficiency
measures for research programs, EPA is soliciting input from the National Academy of Sciences.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Enhance Science and Research objective. New
performance measures were developed for 2006 PART Assessments, which also are supported
by the Land Protection and Restoration activities under other appropriations. These measures
address the increasing utility of EPA research tools and technologies as well as the reduction of
uncertainty due to utilization of research and development methodologies, models, and statistical
designs.
In 2008, the program plans to accomplish its goals of completing and delivering 100% of its
planned outputs. Additionally, the program plans to meet its efficiency goal of reducing to 29
days its technical support centers' average time for processing and responding to requests for
technical document review, statistical analysis, and the evaluation of characterization and
treatability study plans. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of
applying sound science in the protection and restoration of land.
Superfund-84
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1.8) This technical adjustment realigns workforce support costs (such as capital
equipment and repairs and improvement) across the research program to better reflect FY
2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (-$1,600.0) This reflects a decrease in research related to the treatment of inorganic
contaminated sediments, evaluation of existing remedies and development of new
remedies.
• (-$184.1) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$86.2) 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.
• (-$14.4) This is a technical adjustment to realign travel resources across the research
program to better reflect FY 2008 programmatic priorities. There will be no
programmatic impact.
• (-1.1 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This reduction reflects
efficiencies gained in EPA's Research and Development IT and administrative activities
and will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying
out its programs.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
Superfund-85
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
Superfund-86
-------
Research: Sustainability
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$27,042.4
$292.0
$27,334.4
86.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$21,404.9
$0.0
$21,404.9
77.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$22,478.0
$0.0
$22,478.0
76.2
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1,073.1
$0.0
$1,073.1
-1.1
Program Project Description:
Under the Small Business Research (SBIR) Program1, as required by the Small Business Act as
amended2, EPA sets aside 2.5% of its extramural research budget for contracts to small
businesses to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies. SBIR, the only
activity contained in this program, will not be funded under the Superfund account at this time.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Enhance Science and Research objective. Currently,
there are no PART performance measures for this specific program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• The 2.5% set-aside will be identified when the FY 2008 budget is enacted.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; CWA; FIFRA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SBA; SARA; TSCA.
For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/sbir.
2 U.S. Public Law 219. 79th Congress, 2nd session, 22 July 1982. Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982. For more
information, see http://thomas.loc.gOV/cgi-bin/bdquerv/z7dQ97:s.881:.
Superfund-87
-------
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
Superfund-88
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$205,038.7
$205,038.7
353.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$192,398.9
$192,398.9
281.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$191,880.0
$191,880.0
288.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($518.9)
($518.9)
7.0
Program Project Description:
The Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program ensures that releases of hazardous
substances, including chemical, biological, and radiological agents, to the environment are
appropriately addressed through either a Federal lead action or by providing technical support
and oversight to state, local, other Federal responders, and potentially responsible parties (PRPs).
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 provides technical support at emergency, time-critical, and
non-time critical response actions. 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.
Additional information on the emergency response and removal program can be found on the
OSC internet site at: http://www.epaosc.net/default.htm.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA personnel assess, respond to, mitigate, and clean up thousands of releases, whether
accidental, deliberate, or naturally occurring. In FY 2008, EPA Federal OSCs will conduct
and/or provide support for removal assessments, emergency responses, and cleanup response
actions at National Priority List (NPL) and non-NPL sites. In FY 2008, approximately 195
Superfund-lead removal actions and 125 private party removal actions overseen by EPA will be
completed.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to respond and conduct site removal actions based upon the risk
to human health and the environment. In recent years, emergency response and removal
activities have grown more complicated, requiring more resources and time to complete. In
addition, these activities often require personnel with specific knowledge of harmful substances,
health and safety issues, complex options or the utilization of emerging technologies. As a result
of these factors, in FY 2008 EPA will be reducing its focus on non-time critical removal actions,
depending upon the specific needs at the time, in order to focus on the highest priority sites.
Superfund-89
-------
As part of its strategy for improving effectiveness, the Agency will improve response readiness
in FY 2008 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.
The Superfund Removal program received its first PART review in 2003 and its second PART
review in 2005. The initial program rating was "results not demonstrated" because the program
lacked adequate performance measures or an efficiency measure. In 2005, the Removal program
received an overall rating of "moderately effective" in the 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, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS).
Annual performance for the Superfund Removal program is measured by the number of
Superfund-lead removals actions completed, and the number of private party removal actions
overseen by EPA and completed. Both measures contribute to the goals of EPA's 2006-2011
Strategic Plan.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Voluntary removal
actions, overseen by
EPA, completed.
FY 2006
Actual
93
FY 2006
Target
115
FY 2007
Target
120
FY 2008
Target
125
Units
removals
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Superfund-lead
removal actions
completed annually.
FY 2006
Actual
157
FY 2006
Target
195
FY 2007
Target
195
FY 2008
Target
195
Units
removals
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Superfund-lead
removal actions
completed annually per
million dollars.
FY 2006
Actual
1.02
FY 2006
Target
0.91
FY 2007
Target
0.92
FY 2008
Target
0.93
Units
removals
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+7.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These FTE will be utilized to
strengthen EPA's ability to respond to emergencies, including support for coordination
Superfund-90
-------
between EPA and its Federal, state and local response partners, as well as to support
removal activities at properties where significant lead contamination is present.
• (+$3,565.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$4,039.9) Reduces funding for non-time critical Regional response activities. Of this
reduction, $1.8 million will be redirected to the Superfund Remedial program for
Regional construction cleanup work at NPL sites.
• (+$70.0) This increase provides funds to support development of a plan for regular,
comprehensive, and independent program evaluations.
• (-$94.8) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce international travel as
well as a reduction to non-site specific program travel expenses in headquarters and the
Regions.
• (-$20.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA, Sections 104, 105, 106; CWA; OPA.
Superfund-91
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$11,115.1
$11,115.1
32.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$8,863.1
$8,863.1
44.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,318.0
$9,318.0
44.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$454.9
$454.9
0.0
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 state, 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 16 agency National Response Team (NRT) and co-chairs multiple Regional
Response Teams (RRTs) throughout the United States. 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 helping 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 2008 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 in FY 2008 by improving internal and
external coordination with those agencies.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to chair and provide administrative and logistical support to the
NRT and co-chair the 13 RRTs throughout the United States. 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
Superfund-92
-------
national emergency response management, NRT agencies will 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.
In FY 2008, EPA will provide technical assistance, training, and exercises to continue fostering a
working relationship between state, local, and Federal responders implementing the system.
EPA will lead participants in the development of scenario-specific national and Regional level
plans to respond to terrorist events and incidents of national significance.
EPA also will continue to provide staff support as needed during a national disaster, emergency
and other high profile, large-scale responses carried out under the NRP. When activated under
the NRP, EPA supports activities at the NRT, RRTs, Domestic Readiness Group (DRG),
Incident Advisory Council (IAC) and the National Operations Center (NOC).
In FY 2008, EPA staff will deliver presentations on the NRP to national forums and will
participate in nationwide exercises to test and improve the capabilities of the Federal
government's preparedness and response system. EPA conducts an annual week-long readiness
training event for Federal On-Scene Coordinators, which is attended by EPA and its government
partners from other Federal agencies, states and local entities. This training offers short courses
on a variety of environmentally related emergency response topics designated to efficiently
utilize Federal first responders.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's objective for restoring land. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$484.7) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$26.5) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce international travel as
well as a reduction to program travel expenses in Headquarters and the Regions.
• (-$3.3) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; CWA; OP A; Stafford Act.
Superfund-93
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$32,461.2
$32,461.2
138.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$31,486.6
$31,486.6
133.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$31,879.0
$31,879.0
134.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$392. 4
$392.4
1.0
Program Project Description:
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program facilitates faster, more effective and less
costly cleanup and reuse of Federal facilities while ensuring protection of human health and the
environment from releases of hazardous substances. The Agency fulfills a number of statutory
and regulatory obligations at Federal facilities, including conducting oversight on those sites on
the Superfund National Priority List (NPL) where cleanup is being done by other Federal
agencies, such as the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE). In
fulfilling its management responsibilities, the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program
collaborates with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, Tribes, and communities.
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program provides technical assistance to other
Federal entities, states, Tribes, local governments and communities during the cleanup of Federal
properties. The program ensures statutory responsibilities related to the transfer of contaminated
Federal properties at both NPL and non-NPL sites are properly fulfilled. Such responsibilities
include approval of transfers prior to implementation of remedies at NPL sites (i.e., early
transfer), and approving determinations that remedies are operating "properly and successfully"
at both NPL and non-NPL sites. Often EPA, and the parties implementing the remedies, face
unique challenges due to the types of contamination present, the size of the facility and extent of
contamination, ongoing facility operations that need to continue, complex community
involvement requirements, and complexities related to the redevelopment of the facilities. For
additional information regarding the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program, please refer
to: htj]3i//wwwj3
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program will continue to focus on
achieving site construction completions, accelerating cleanups, promoting reuse of current or
former Federal properties and ensuring appropriate community involvement. As of October
2006, there were: 158 Federal facilities on the NPL, 14 Federal facilities deleted from the NPL,
5 Federal facilities proposed to be added to the NPL, 70 (41%) Federal facility sites with a final
remedy selected, 55 (32%) Federal facility sites that had achieved site construction completion
and 14 (8%) Federal facility sites identified as site-wide ready for anticipated use.
Superfund-94
-------
There still remains extensive work to be performed in the Superfund Federal Facilities Response
program. As of October 2006, the program was conducting oversight and/or providing technical
assistance on 411 ongoing Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) and 221 ongoing
Remedial Actions (RA) at 172 Federal facilities.
NPL Federal Facilities by Agency
(Proposed, Final and Deleted)
Natl Guard
1%
Navy
29%
Corp of Eng.
1%
*Other Federal Agencies include: Coast Guard (1), Dept. of the Interior (2), Dept. of Transportation (1),
EPA (1), Federal Aviation Administration (1), National Aeronautics & Space Administration (2),
Small Business Administration (1), Dept. of Agriculture (2)
In FY 2008, the program will continue supporting and encouraging citizen involvement by
participating in DOD's Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) and the DOE's Site Specific
Advisory Boards (SSABs). The RABs and SSABs provide an opportunity for public input on
the environmental cleanup process at Federal facilities, and foster information exchange and
partnerships among community members, DOD, DOE, states, and EPA.
The program will continue strengthening its efforts towards ensuring the safe reuse of former
Federal properties, as well as ensuring the safe continued use of facilities under the jurisdiction
of the Federal government. At properties that will remain in Federal jurisdiction and control, the
program will work with the other Federal agencies to ensure that cleanup remedies are
appropriate for continued Federal use. The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program will
continue working with state and local governments, Tribes, communities and transferees to
ensure properties transferred to non-Federal entities will be reused in a safe and productive
manner.
The program also will continue to monitor 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. In FY 2008, the program will review approximately 22 five-year review
Superfund-95
-------
reports at Federal facility NPL sites to fulfill statutory requirements and inform the public
regarding the protectiveness of remedies at those facilities.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue providing oversight and technical assistance, as appropriate, at
DOD's military munitions response sites, including oversight of 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 Superfund Federal Facilities Response program will continue working with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and states in the cleanups of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program (FUSRAP) properties. FUSRAP properties are contaminated with radioactive
materials and mixed waste resulting from the Nation's early atomic weapons and energy
program. Three of the 27 active FUSRAP sites are listed on the Superfund NPL, and the
USAGE and DOE are currently evaluating several sites proposed for the NPL.
In carrying out its responsibilities at facilities owned by other Federal agencies, EPA prioritizes
its activities based primarily on the degree of risk to human health and the environment, as it
does at non-Federal facilities. If another Federal agency requests EPA to change its priorities to
accommodate that agency's own priorities (e.g., property transfer), EPA will seek reimbursement
for the additional cost required for that effort.
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response Program will continue supporting DOD at selected
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installations closed or realigned during the first four
rounds of BRAC (BRAC I-IV). EPA's participation in the BRAC I-IV accelerated cleanup
process continues to be funded through an interagency agreement, which expires on September
30, 2008. The fifth round of BRAC (BRAC V), finalized on November 9, 2005, will result in
additional EPA work requirements at selected BRAC V installations which began in FY 2006.
This includes, but is not limited to, meeting and expediting statutory obligations for overseeing
cleanup and facilitating property transfer. The Agency's FY 2008 request does not include
additional support for BRAC-related services to DOD at BRAC V facilities. If EPA services are
required at levels above its base for BRAC V related installations, the Agency will require
reimbursement from DOD for the costs the Agency incurs to provide those services.
The program underwent a PART assessment in 2005 and received an overall rating of
"moderately effective." As follow-up to the PART, the program has been working with other
Federal agencies to attain long-term environmental measures. Such efforts will continue in FY
2007. In addition, the program conducted a policy review in FY 2006 to ensure policies and
guidance documents are still relevant, updated and comprehensive. The program plans to
implement several of the resulting recommendations in FY 2007.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Program dollars
expended annually per
operable unit
FY 2006
Actual
697
FY 2006
Target
1,000
FY 2007
Target
960
FY 2008
Target
920
Units
thousand
Superfund-96
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
completing cleanup
activities.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of Federal
Facility Superfund
sites where all
remedies have
completed
construction.
FY 2006
Actual
55
FY 2006
Target
51
FY 2007
Target
56
FY 2008
Target
60
Units
sites
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of Federal
Facility Superfund
sites where the final
remedial decision for
contaminants at the site
has been determined.
FY 2006
Actual
70
FY 2006
Target
61
FY 2007
Target
76
FY 2008
Target
81
Units
remedies
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 Federal
facility sites on the NPL. In FY 2008, the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program is
expected to achieve five construction completions.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's Regional workforce management strategy that
will help the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
• (+$901.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$514.2) This reflects a reduction of $352 thousand in Headquarters and $162 thousand
in the Regions for non-NPL activities, such as FUDS, and general support activities such
as the Regional records center. The $162 thousand reduction in Regional resources will
be redirected to the Superfund Remedial program for Regional construction cleanup work
at NPL sites.
• (-$50.6) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce international travel as
well as a reduction to non-site specific program travel expenses in Headquarters and the
Regions.
Superfund-97
-------
• (-$3.8) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (+$60.0) This increase provides funds for program evaluations in the Superfund Federal
Facilities Response program.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA/SARA; RCRA; Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988, 1990, 1992,
1994, and 2004 as amended by the National Defense Authorization Acts and the Base Closure
Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act; Community Environmental Response
Facilitation Act; National Defense Authorization Act; and NEPA.
Superfund-98
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$667,056.2
$667,056.2
969.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$581,594.9
$581,594.9
950.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$584,836.0
$584,836.0
946.2
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$3,241.1
$3,241.1
-4.0
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 in so doing
helps make these properties available for reuse. Resources in this program are used to: 1)
collect and analyze data on sites to determine the need for an EPA Federal Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (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 research conducted by the Agency, EPA stays abreast of state-of-the-art analytical
methods and remediation technologies by working in partnership with academia, other Federal
agencies, and industry to identify and deploy promising technologies and strategies. The
technical support provided by the Superfund Remedial program is used by other programs,
including RCRA Corrective Action, Underground Storage Tanks, Brownfields and state
voluntary cleanup programs. For more information about the program, please refer to
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/about.htm.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, as in prior years, cleanup and response work at contaminated sites remains the top
priority of the Superfund Remedial program. The program will continue to address intractable
and complex environmental problems, such as contaminated soil and groundwater affecting
residential areas that can cause human health problems. The goal of the program's work is
ultimately to provide long-term human health protection at the Nation's most contaminated
hazardous waste sites. In addition to its cleanup work, the Superfund Remedial program will
undertake temporary activities, when appropriate, to protect people from threats posed by
uncontrolled hazardous wastes or contaminated groundwater, such as providing alternative
drinking water supplies or relocating residents. These efforts demonstrate the Agency's
Superfund-99
-------
commitment to protecting human health from both possible short- and long-term effects of site-
related contamination.
In FY 2008, the program has established targets as follows:
(1) 272 Remedial Final Site Assessment Decisions, for a cumulative total of 39,910;
(2) 10 sites with Human Exposures under Control, for a cumulative total of 1,289;
(3) 15 sites with Groundwater Migration under Control, for a cumulative total of 983;
(4) 30 sites deemed Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use, for a cumulative total of 255;
and
(5) 24 Construction Completions, for a cumulative total of 1,060.
In addition to conducting current program activities, the Agency will undertake several
additional actions to improve program management and increase efficiency. In FY 2008, the
Superfund Remedial program will focus attention on construction costs by working with the
Army Corps of Engineers to review how each of EPA's Regional Offices plan and implement
construction projects, site-specifically and programmatically, in order to maximize efficient use
of resources, especially in multi-year projects.
The Superfund Remedial Action program was initially assessed under PART in 2004, and
received an overall rating of "adequate." The PART found that 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 National Priority
List (NPL). In FY 2007, the program will use a new efficiency measure that tracks NPL sites
with human exposures under control per million dollars.
As additional follow-up to the PART, EPA is working to modernize the program's data
repository (e.g., the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System, or CERCLIS) to ensure accurate and complete information on program
performance and financial management. The program also will continue to implement the
recommendations of the Agency's 120-day study on management of the Superfund program.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Annual number of
Superfund sites with
remedy construction
completed.
FY 2006
Actual
40
FY 2006
Target
40
FY 2007
Target
24
FY 2008
Target
30
Units
completions
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Superfund final site
assessment decisions
completed.
FY 2006
Actual
518
FY 2006
Target
419
FY 2007
Target
350
FY 2008
Target
272
Units
assessments
Superfund-100
-------
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Human exposures
under control per
million dollars.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
6.1
FY 2008
Target
6.4
Units
thousand
With remedies constructed at 1,006 sites by the end of FY 2006, the Superfund Remedial
program is increasing its focus on ensuring that remedies at those sites will provide long-term
protection of human health, and has developed a new measure to report program
accomplishments in making land ready for reuse at sites where construction is completed. The
Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU) measure complies with the Agency's responsibility
to report long-term outcome based accomplishments under the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA). This measure documents sites where all cleanup goals have been achieved
for media that may affect current and reasonably anticipated future land uses of the site so that
there are no unacceptable risks. In addition, all institutional or other controls required in the
Record(s) of Decision or other remedy decision document(s) for these sites have been put in
place. The measure reflects the high priority EPA places on land revitalization as an integral part
of the Agency's cleanup mission for the Superfund program as well as the priority EPA is now
placing on post-construction activities at NPL sites.
Even though the Superfund program met its FY 2006 targets for the majority of its performance
measures, challenges remain for the coming years. These challenges include a diminishing
universe of eligible construction completion sites; many of the remaining sites that have not
reached the construction completion stage are highly complex; and the number of sites that will
complete all remedies in any particular year will fluctuate based on construction schedules. As a
result, EPA has adjusted the prior FY 2007 construction completion target to 24 and has
established a FY 2008 target of 30.
While the Superfund Remedial program has a number of projects ready to begin construction,
funding also must be provided for several large, complex remedial projects to ensure
construction 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. The Remedial Allowance for new
construction, ongoing projects, and post-construction activities is $259 million in FY 2008. As
in the prior year, the Agency proposes to continue its redirection of resources from earlier phase
activities toward remedial construction. Although the Agency exceeded its FY 2006 goal by
nearly 100 decisions, it is anticipated that Remedial Final Assessment Decisions will be
decreasing from 350 in FY 2007 to 272 in FY 2008. However, EPA and its partners will
continue to prioritize site assessments based on risk, and the Agency maintains flexibility to
manage resources within the Superfund Remedial program project depending on the need in FY
2008.
Performance goals and measures for the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program are a
component of the Superfund Remedial program's measures. The Agency's ability to meet its
annual Superfund targets is partially dependent on work performed by other Federal agencies at
Superfund-101
-------
NPL Federal facility sites. These performance measures contribute to the goals set out in EPA's
2006-2011 Strategic Plan.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-4.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
• (+$2,329.8) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1,500.0) This reflects a net increase to the Superfund Remedial program. A total of
$4.0 million is being redirected to the Remedial program for Regional construction
cleanup work at NPL sites.
• (-$373.8) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce international travel as
well as a reduction to non-site specific program travel expenses in Headquarters and the
Regions.
• (-$184.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
• (-$35.2) This reduction reflects savings from improvements to the Agency's small
administrative IT Systems.
• (+$4.3) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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-102
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$4,989.0
$4,989.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$8,575.4
$8,575.4
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,000.4)
($2,000.4)
0.0
Program Project Description:
Other Federal agencies contribute to the Superfund program by providing services in areas where
EPA does not possess the necessary specialized expertise. These agencies provide numerous
Superfund-related services which Superfund resources support. In most years, contributors
include the Department of Interior (DOI), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG).
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Agency will continue to provide resources through interagency agreements to
support other select Federal agencies. The following table illustrates the levels of funding
proposed to be provided to each Federal agency in EPA's FY 2008 request:
Other Federal Agency Funding
($ in thousands)
Agency
DOT
FEMA
NOAA
OSHA
USCG
Total
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$ 801.1
$ 3241
$ 1.963.0
$ 5208
$ 4.966.4
$ 8.575.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
$ 546.0
$ 0.0
$ 1 063 0
$ 0.0
$ 4.966.0
$ 6.575.(
DOI will provide response preparedness and management assistance that supports the National
Response Team/Regional Response Teams (NRT/RRTs), and EPA's Special Units including the
Environmental Response Team, the National Decontamination Team, and the Radiation
Response Team.
NOAA will provide site-specific technical support during hazardous waste site investigations,
assist in ecological risk assessments, identify and evaluate the severity of risks posed to natural
Superfund-103
-------
resources from hazardous waste sites, and evaluate strategies/methods of minimizing those risks.
NOAA also will assist in developing and conducting field testing of advanced chemical sampling
and analytical equipment used for cost effective and efficient response operations. New
technology and information will be applied by NOAA to identify effective countermeasures
during response operations.
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 EPA's objective for restoring land. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,000.0) Reduces funding for DOT and NOAA, based on past level of effort, and
eliminates funding for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), reflecting a decreased demand for
their services. The USCG is funded at approximately the FY 2007 President's Budget
level because EPA's need for its services to respond to natural disasters and homeland
security events has not decreased in recent years.
• (-$0.4) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA Sections 104, 105, 106; CWA; OPA.
Superfund-104
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2008 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 2
Compliance Assistance and Centers 3
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 5
IT / Data Management 6
Program Area: Operations and Administration 8
Acquisition Management 9
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 11
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 13
Human Resources Management 15
Program Area: Research: Land Protection 16
Research: Land Protection and Restoration 17
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST /UST) 19
LUST/UST 20
LUST Cooperative Agreements 23
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$86,184.4
69.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$72,759.0
76.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$72,461.0
75.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($298.0)
-1.6
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
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 2006
Actuals
$481.3
$130.9
$357.3
$760.9
$769.6
$3.0
$1,890.8
$617.2
$11,889.1
$71,175.1
$71,175.1
$83,064.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$839.1
$175.9
$360.8
$1,014.8
$916.8
$3.0
$2,295.4
$651.3
$10,590.1
$58,207.2
$58,207.2
$68,797.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$688.0
$177.0
$165.0
$1,102.0
$901.0
$3.0
$2,171.0
$660.0
$10,558.0
$58,207.0
$58,207.0
$68,765.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($151.1)
$1.1
($195.8)
$87.2
($15.8)
$0.0
($124.4)
$8.7
($32.1)
($0.2)
($0.2)
($32.3)
LUST-1
-------
Program Area: Compliance
LUST-2
-------
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Program Area: Compliance
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program & Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Oil Spill Response
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$27,774.3
$481.3
$257.8
$11.0
$28,524.4
197.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$28,890.7
$839.1
$280.2
$22.2
$30,032.2
212.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,547.0
$688.0
$291.0
$22.0
$30,548.0
208.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$656.3
($151.1)
$10.8
($0.2)
$515.8
-3.7
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 (UST), EPA will
continue to provide compliance assistance tools, technical assistance, and training to promote
and enforce UST systems compliance.l
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to provide general and targeted compliance assistance to the
regulated community and integrate assistance into its enforcement and compliance assurance
efforts. In FY 2008 the Agency also will continue to obtain state 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 USTs into compliance. The Agency will also continue to provide
guidance to foster the use of new technology to enhance compliance.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
1 For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/index.htm.
LUST-3
-------
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the goal to preserve land. Currently, there are no performance
measures specific to this program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-0.7 FTE) This decrease reflects the Agency's plans to realign FTE to address the
increased number of Brownfields grant reviews which are becoming more complex and
resource intensive.
• (-$152.0) 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
cost.
• (+$0.9) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA.
LUST-4
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
LUST-5
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$98,871.4
$4,412.9
$130.9
$38.8
$16,646.2
$120,100.2
515.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$96,807.2
$4,268.0
$175.9
$32.5
$17,120.4
$118,404.0
488.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$91,019.0
$3,499.0
$177.0
$34.0
$16,338.0
$111,067.0
488.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($5,788.2)
($769.0)
$1.1
$1.5
($782.4)
($7,337.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This IT/Data Management Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 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, 1)
implements the Agency's E-Government (E-Gov) responsibilities; designs, develops and
manages the Agency's Internet and Intranet resources including the Integrated Portal, 2) 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, 3) provides a secure, reliable,
and capable information infrastructure based on a sound enterprise architecture which includes
data standardization, integration, and public access, 4) manages the Agency's Quality System
ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and adhere to Federal guidelines, and, supports
Regional information technology infrastructure, administrative and environmental programs, and
telecommunications. These functions are integral to the implementation of Agency information
technology programs and systems like the Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX)
and Permit Compliance System (PCS). Agency Offices rely on the IT/Data Management
program and its capabilities to develop and implement tools for ready access to accurate and
timely data.
LUST-6
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA's Information Technology community will continue focusing on the Agency's
Technology Initiative1 and fulfilling the Agency's E-Gov commitments. The Agency's IT/Data
Management LUST 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 Environmental Indicators, and continuing to deploy enterprise-wide IT
infrastructure solutions.
In FY 2008 the IT/Data Management LUST resources continue to support EPA's 'Readiness to
Serve' infrastructure program. This program delivers secure information services to ensure that
the Agency and the LUST programs have a full range of information technology infrastructure
components (e.g., user equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application hosting, remote
access) that make information accessible across the spectrum of mission needs at all locations.
The program uses performance-based, outsourced services to obtain the best solutions (value for
cost) for the range of program needs. This includes innovative multi-year leasing that sustains
and renews technical services in a least-cost, stable manner as technology changes over time
(e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance).
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD & DAA; TSCA; FIFRA;
FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA;
FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA.
1 Office of Environmental Information's (OEI) FY 2006 Technology Initiative has three major components: 1) Building on its
Analytical Capacity and Indicators work, OEI will uncover and fill data gaps, and develop response capacity; 2) Using the portal
and Exchange Network, OEI will increase the integration of quality data, streamline transactions to foster collaboration, reduce
the data entry burden, and improve decision making; and 3) OEFs Readiness to Serve initiative will build capacity and
infrastructure to allow more EPA employees to telecommute or work safely and securely in the field.
LUST-7
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
LUST-8
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$23,040.8
5357.3
$19,577.1
$42,975.2
351.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$25,418.3
$360. 8
$23,514.3
$49,293.4
357.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,992.0
$165.0
$24,645.0
$54,802.0
357.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$4,573.7
($195.8)
$1,130.7
$5,508.6
0.1
Program Project Description:
LUST resources in this program support contract and acquisition management activities at
Headquarters, Regional Offices, Research Triangle Park and Cincinnati offices. Sound contract
management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs. 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 2008 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 addition, LUST resources
will support the Superfund/RCRA Regional Procurement Operations Division (SRPOD) in its
contract and acquisition management activities.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$91.8) This reduction reflects efficiencies gained in Agency administrative or contract
management services.
LUST-9
-------
• (-$105.0) This payroll and FTE decrease reflects EPA's workforce management strategy
that will help the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. These
reductions will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in
carrying out its programs.
• (+$1.0) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
• (-0.9 FTE) This change reflects 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 Acts; FAR; contract law.
LUST-10
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$70,768.6
$760.9
$21,783.7
$93,313.2
515.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$83,548.1
$1,014.8
$25,540.8
$110,103.7
537.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$74,960.0
$1,102.0
$24,306.0
$100,368.0
530.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($8,588.1)
$87.2
($1,234.8)
($9,735.7)
-7.7
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. PART and
GPRA coordination is also a priority. (Refer to http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/functions.htm for
additional information).
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue efforts to modernize the Agency's financial systems and business processes.
The modernization effort will reduce cost, and comply with Congressional direction and new
Federal financial systems requirements. This work is framed by the Agency's Enterprise
Architecture and will ensure 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.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives.
performance measures for this program project.
Currently, there are no
LUST-11
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$86.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$2.0) This increase provides funding for contracts to support the financial management
of the LUST program.
• (-$1.0) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
Annual Appropriations Act; CCA; CERCLA; CSA; E-Government Act of 2002; EFOIA; EPA's
Environmental Statutes, and the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act; FAIR; Federal
Acquisition Regulations, contract law and EPA's Assistance Regulations (40CFR Parts 30, 31,
35, 40,45,46, 47); FMFIA (1982); FOIA; GMRA(1994); IPIA; IGA of 1978 and Amendments of
1988; PRA; PR; CFOA (1990); GPRA (1993); The Prompt Payment Act (1982); Title 5 USC.
LUST-12
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$336,980.6
$8,841.7
$30,871.3
$769.6
$366.1
$66,365.6
$444,194.9
375.1
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 2008
Pres Bud
$303,728.0
$73,859.0
$26,931.0
$901.0
$490.0
$74,956.0
$480,865.0
415.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$8,967.9
$3,619.5
($1,499.9)
($15.8)
($9.3)
$1,011.3
$12,073.7
-22.7
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 at EPA. These
include health and safety, environmental compliance, occupational health, medical monitoring,
fitness/wellness and safety, and environmental management functions. 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 2008 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. Further,
EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order 13ISO1
Federal Workforce Transportation.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
LUST-13
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$16.3) This decrease represents fixed cost savings in FY 2008.
• (+$0.5) Provides additional resources for increases in transit subsidy.
Statutory Authority:
FPASA; PBA; annual Appropriations Acts; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive
Orders 10577 and 12598; Homeland Security Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical
Infrastructure Protection).
LUST-14
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$42,966.8
$3.0
$5,282.1
$48,251.9
323.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$40,202.5
$3.0
$5,270.2
$45,475.7
297.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$40,175.0
$3.0
$5,036.0
$45,214.0
296.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($27.5)
$0.0
($234.2)
($261.7)
-1.3
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 Agencywide 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to meet the Department of Labor requirements for distributing
workmen's compensation and disability. Human Resources Management resources are allocated
to the LUST appropriation based on the portion of LUST FTE requiring Human Resources
Management services.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
Title V USC.
LUST-15
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
LUST-16
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$12,101.5
$617.2
$828.4
$22,210.2
$35,757.3
141.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,552.8
$651.3
$903.1
$21,963.9
$34,071.1
142.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,737.0
$660.0
$901.0
$20,081.0
$32,379.0
141.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$184.2
$8.7
($2.1)
($1,882.9)
($1,692.1)
-1.5
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 Strategy1, which was developed with
participation from major clients and outlines research needs and priorities. These research efforts
are guided by the Land Multi-Year Plan (MYP)2, developed with input from across the Agency,
which outlines 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 Land Protection and Restoration research program was reviewed by EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory committee comprised of qualified,
independent scientists and engineers—in FY 2006 (December 2005). The BOSC found that the
program generates high quality products and conducts appropriately focused multi-disciplinary
research.
1 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Waste Research Strategy. Washington, D.C.: EPA. For more
information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/wastepub.pdf.
2 For more information, see 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 merged 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. The new plan will be posted when peer-review comments are
addressed in the second quarter of FY 2007.
LUST-17
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
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 report on monitored natural
attenuation of ethylene dibromide (EDB) 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). In FY 2008, EPA will continue to enhance the Tools
for Analysis of Contaminated Sites (TAGS) version 2, which 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).
In 2006, the Land Protection and Restoration Research Program received an "adequate" rating in
its first PART review. EPA and OMB continue to work to finalize appropriate ambitious
performance measures, develop and implement a protocol for improved budget-performance
integration, and develop a new efficiency measure that captures the cost effectiveness of research
activities. To this end, OMB, EPA, and members of the BOSC formed a workgroup to discuss
long-term measurement of EPA's research and development programs. As part of the
workgroup, EPA has devised program-specific questions to be addressed by the BOSC and used
in support of long-term measurement. To identify appropriate outcome-oriented efficiency
measures for research programs, EPA is soliciting input from the National Academy of Sciences.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program project supports EPA's Enhance Science and Research objective.
Performance measures for this specific program are included under the Superfund Land
Protection and Restoration program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$7.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$0.9) This technical adjustment realigns workforce support costs (such as capital
equipment and repairs and improvement) across the research program to better reflect FY
2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
• (-$0.1) This is a technical adjustment to realign travel resources across the research
program to better reflect FY 2008 priorities. There will be no programmatic impacts.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
LUST-18
-------
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST-19
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$9,042.3
$11,889.1
$20,931.4
111.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$11,713.7
$10,590.1
$22,303.8
131.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$11,719.0
$10,558.0
$22,277.0
131.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$5.3
($32.1)
($26.8)
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 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 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, refer to 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to work with the states and Tribes to complete LUST cleanups in
an effort to reduce the backlog of 113,919 cleanups not yet completed.1 Since the beginning of
the LUST program, EPA has cleaned up almost 75 percent (or 350,813) of all reported releases.
As of September 2006, EPA and state tank programs completed 14,493 cleanups in states and
territories in FY 2006, of which 43 cleanups were completed in Indian country (refer to
http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca_06_34.pdf). For FY 2008, the program's goal for LUST
cleanups in Indian country is 30.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum, FY 2006 End-of-Year Activity Report, from Cliff
Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-
10, dated November 14, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca 06 34.pdf.
LUST-20
-------
EPA's LUST program priorities continue to focus on increasing the efficiency of LUST cleanups
nationwide; addressing contaminants of concern; and promoting the continued use, reuse, and
long-term management of LUST sites. In FY 2008, EPA will continue to help states and Tribes
improve LUST cleanup performance by targeting source water areas using a drinking water
mapping application, developing and promoting the use of innovative tools such as multi-site and
geographical cleanup approaches, optimizing the use of cleanup technologies, and streamlining
cleanup decisions and processes. (Refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/index.htm.) EPA also
will continue its efforts to monitor the soundness of state cleanup funds, a significant source of
funding for addressing LUST cleanups, and the impact of contaminants.
The 2005 EPAct2 requirement to develop a strategy for implementing the program in Indian
country enhanced EPA's efforts and provided renewed focus to improve the LUST cleanup rate
in Indian country. To address 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. The EPA also will continue to provide technical expertise and
assistance by utilizing in-house personnel, contractors and grants/cooperative agreements to
Tribal entities; response activities; oversight of responsible party lead cleanups; and support and
assistance to Tribal governments.
The LUST program was assessed under PART and in 2004 received an overall rating of
"adequate" from OMB's third review of the program. To achieve an adequate rating, EPA was
asked to create two long-term performance measures that focus on environmental outcomes: 1)
increasing the number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration, and 2) number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for human
exposure and groundwater migration on Indian country.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Outcome
Measure
Number of cleanups
that meet risk -based
standards for human
exposure and
groundwater migration
(tracked as the number
of LUST cleanups
completed)
Number of cleanups
that meet risk -based
standards for human
FY 2006
Actual
14,493
43
FY 2006
Target
13,600
30
FY 2007
Target
13,000
30
FY 2008
Target
13,000
30
Units
cleanups
cleanups
For more information regarding UST/LUST provisions refer to, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bm/getdoc.cgi?dbname= 109 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-21
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of cleanups
that meet risk -based
standards for human
exposure and
groundwater migration
(tracked as the number
of LUST cleanups
completed)
exposure and
groundwater migration
on Indian Country.
FY 2006
Actual
14,493
FY 2006
Target
13,600
FY 2007
Target
13,000
FY 2008
Target
13,000
Units
cleanups
The program tracks the number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards for human
exposure and groundwater migration on Indian Country annually.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$28.9) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$63.4) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce international travel as
well as a reduction to program travel expenses in Headquarters and the Regions.
• (+$2.4) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Reauthorization Amendments of 1986 (Subtitle
I), Section 9003(h); Section 8001(a) Tribal Grants Public Law 105-276; EPAct of 2005.
LUST-22
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$71,175.1
$71,175.1
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$58,207.2
$58,207.2
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$58,207.0
$58,207.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($0.2)
($0.2)
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 (refer to http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/20clenup.htm), 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 continue to fund research, studies and training under Section 8001
(a)(l) of the SWDA that directly supports state oversight and cleanup of LUST sites under
Section 9003(h).
States are the primary implementing agencies (except in Indian country). 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
(refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST/ltffacts.htm), and cost recover from responsible parties who
are unwilling to pay for cleanups.
When the LUST Trust Fund is used, tank owners/operators are liable to the state for costs
incurred and are subject to cost recovery actions. EPA, with few exceptions, does not perform
the cleanup of LUSTs. Approximately 40 states have UST cleanup funds that pay for most UST
cleanups and are separate from the LUST Trust Fund; collectively states raise and spend more
than $1 billion annually. EPA will not use LUST appropriations to implement any provision of
the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 that is not also a leaking underground storage tank
activity authorized by SARA.
LUST-23
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA's on-going work focuses attention and efforts on increasing the efficiency of LUST
cleanups nationwide. In FY 2008, EPA will continue to work with the states to complete
cleanups and reduce the backlog of 113,919 cleanups1 not yet completed. Since the beginning
of the UST program, almost 75 percent (or 350,813) of all reported releases has been cleaned up.
At the FY 2008 request level, the Agency will provide not less than SOpercent of LUST
appropriated funds to states to carry out specific purposes.2 EPA will distribute LUST funding
to states under a previously established allocation process.
The LUST program was assessed under PART and in 2004 received an overall rating of
"adequate" from OMB's third review of the program. To achieve an adequate rating, EPA was
asked to create two long-term performance measures that focus on environmental outcomes: 1)
increasing the number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration, and 2) LUST cleanups completed over a three-year rolling average per
total cleanup dollars, which is a new measure of program efficiency. Due to the recent
legislative changes from the EPAct, EPA and the states are re-evaluating and updating this
measure.
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 2006
Actual
14,493
FY 2006
Target
13,600
FY 2007
Target
13,000
FY 2008
Target
13,000
Units
cleanups
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$0.2) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA of 1976, as amended by SARA of 1986 (Subtitle I), Section 9003(h); Section 9004(f);
Section 8001(a)(l); Section 9003 (h)(7) of the SWDA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum, FY 2006 End-of-Year Activity Report, from Cliff
Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-
10, dated November 14, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca_06_34.pdf
2 Title XV, Subtitle B of the EPAct of 2005; SWDA of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Reauthorization
Amendments of 1986 (Subtitle I), Section 9004(f).
LUST-24
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2008 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 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Oil Spill Response
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Oil Spill Response
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$15,895.5
84.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$16,506.0
98.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$17,280.0
102.2
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$774.0
3.5
Program Projects in Oil Spills
(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 2006
Actuals
$257.8
$1,759.1
$38.8
$12,645.3
$366.1
$828.4
$828.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$280.2
$1,826.3
$32.5
$12,964.6
$499.3
$903.1
$903.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$291.0
$2,065.0
$34.0
$13,499.0
$490.0
$901.0
$901.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$10.8
$238.7
$1.5
$534.4
($9.3)
($2.1)
($2.1)
Oil Spills-1
-------
Program Area: Compliance
Oil Spills-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 2006
Actuals
$27,774.3
$481.3
$25 7. 8
$11.0
$28,524.4
197.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$28,890.7
$839.1
$280.2
$22.2
$30,032.2
212.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,547.0
$688.0
$291.0
$22.0
$30,548.0
208.4
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$656.3
($151.1)
$10.8
($0.2)
$515.8
-3.7
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.
This portion of 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 311 (oil spill and hazardous substances)
requirements, the Agency will continue in FY 2008 to provide compliance assistance to
regulated entities to assist them in understanding their legal requirements under the CWA and
provide them with cost effective compliance strategies to help prevent oil spills.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
Oil Spills-3
-------
Performance Targets:
More information is included in the Program Performance and Assessment Section. For more
information, visit: http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/prevent.htm.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$10.5) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$0.3) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
OP A; CWA; CERCLA; PPA; NEPA; PHSA; DREAA; SOW A; Executive Order 12241;
Executive Order 12656.
Oil Spills-4
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
Oil Spills-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 2006
Actuals
$118,560.9
$1,759.1
$785.4
$121,105.4
936.4
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$120,777.7
$1,826.3
$883.0
$123,487.0
958.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$126,645.0
$2,065.0
$884.0
$129,594.0
969.1
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$5,867.3
$238. 7
$1.0
$6,107.0
10.6
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 improve
our country's prevention and response capabilities.1
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
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 2008, the program will also provide support for field investigations and
inspections of spills as well as Spill Control Countermeasure compliance assistance.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/oilspill/index.htm.
Oil Spills-6
-------
Performance Targets:
One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions2. The Agency is exploring methodologies to
strengthen 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 goal to preserve land. Currently, there are no performance
measures specific to this program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+1.5 FTE) The increase reflects an FTE realignment from Superfund Enforcement. The
Civil Enforcement program anticipates increased legal workload to ensure compliance
with the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) regulation and the
Facility Response Plan (FRP) program requirements due to an increase of FTE to the
response component of the Oil program.
• (+$240.2) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1.5) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
OP A; CWA; CERCLA; NEPA; Pollution Prosecution Act.
2 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
Oil Spills-7
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
Oil Spills-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 2006
Actuals
$98,871.4
$4,412.9
$130.9
$38.8
$16,646.2
$120,100.2
515.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$96,807.2
$4,268.0
$175.9
$32.5
$17,120.4
$118,404.0
488.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$91,019.0
$3,499.0
$177.0
$34.0
$16,338.0
$111,067.0
488.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($5,788.2)
($769.0)
$1.1
$1.5
($782.4)
($7,337.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The IT/Data Management Oil 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 1) implements the Agency's E-Government (E-
Gov) responsibilities; designs, develops and manages the Agency's Internet and Intranet
resources including the Integrated Portal, 2) 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, 3) provides a secure, reliable, and capable information infrastructure based on a
sound enterprise architecture which includes data standardization, integration, and public access,
4) manages the Agency's Quality System ensuring EPA's processes and data are of quality and
adhere to Federal guidelines, and, 5) supports regional information technology infrastructure,
administrative and environmental programs, and telecommunications. These functions are
integral to the implementation of Agency information technology programs and systems like the
Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX) and Permit Compliance System (PCS).
Agency offices rely on the IT/Data Management program and its capabilities to develop and
implement tools for ready access to accurate and timely data.
Oil Spills-9
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA's Information Technology community will continue focusing on the Agency's
Technology Initiative1 and fulfilling the Agency's E-Gov commitments. The Agency's IT/Data
Management Oil 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 Environmental Indicators, and continuing to deploy enterprise-wide IT
infrastructure solutions.
In FY 2008, the IT/Data Management Oil Spill resources continue to support EPA's 'Readiness
to Serve' infrastructure program. This program delivers secure information services to ensure
that the Agency and the Oil programs have a full range of information technology infrastructure
components (e.g., user equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application hosting, remote
access) that make information accessible across the spectrum of mission needs at all locations.
The program uses performance-based, outsourced services to obtain the best solutions (value for
cost) for the range of program needs. This includes innovative multi-year leasing that sustains
and renews technical services in a least-cost, stable manner as technology changes over time
(e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance).
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1.5) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAAA; CWA and amendments; ERD & DAA; TSCA; FIFRA;
FQPA; SDWA and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA;
FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA.
1 Office of Environmental Information (OEI)'s FY 2006 Technology Initiative has three major components: 1) Building on its
Analytical Capacity and Indicators work, OEI will uncover and fill data gaps, and develop response capacity; 2) Using the portal
and Exchange Network, OEI will increase the integration of quality data, streamline transactions to foster collaboration, reduce
the data entry burden, and improve decision making; and 3) OEFs Readiness to Serve initiative will build capacity and
infrastructure to allow more EPA employees to telecommute or work safely and securely in the field.
Oil Spills-10
-------
Program Area: Oil
Oil Spills-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 2006
Actuals
$12,645.3
$12,645.3
73.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,964.6
$12,964.6
82.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$13,499.0
$13,499.0
84.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$534.4
$534.4
2.0
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 occurring in 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. For more information, refer to http://www.epa.gov/oilspill.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
FY 2008 program priorities include improvements to the Oil program's regulatory requirements.
In FY 2008, EPA intends to finalize regulatory changes that are to be proposed in FY 2007
designed to clarify a number of technical issues associated with the SPCC rule requirements and
to address small businesses, farms, and other sector adjustments that arose from regulatory work
completed in calendar year 2006. Substantial supporting work, including data gathering
activities and responding to public comments on the proposed rule, will be necessary to complete
rule finalization in FY 2008. EPA also expects to revise and update guidance that was issued in
calendar year 2005 to ensure it reflects current rule requirements and input from stakeholders.
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 2008,
EPA will continue to review/approve FRPs and conduct inspections and exercises at an
estimated 250 FRP facilities. EPA will emphasize emergency preparedness, particularly through
Oil Spills-12
-------
the use of unannounced drills and exercises, to ensure facilities and responders can effectively
implement response plans.
Working with area officials (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 contingency plans (ACPs) and regional contingency plans. 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.
EPA's Oil Spill program was assessed under PART in 2005 and received an overall rating of
"adequate." Program performance is determined by measuring the gallons of oil spilled to
navigable waters from facilities subject to EPA's FRP regulations and measuring the compliance
rate of facilities with the FRP and SPCC requirements. The program is also developing stronger
strategic planning procedures to ensure continuous program improvement, ensuring data quality,
and developing a forum to share best spill prevention practices across Regional Offices. EPA
issued guidance to Regional program managers for use in understanding and reporting on these
performance measures and recommendations/follow up actions.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
inspected facilities
subject to Spill
Prevention, Control
and Countermeasures
(SPCC) regulations
found to be in
compliance.
FY 2006
Actual
50
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
53
FY 2008
Target
55
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
inspected facilities
subject to Facility
Response Plan (FRP)
regulations found to be
in compliance.
FY 2006
Actual
71
FY 2006
Target
100
FY 2007
Target
75
FY 2008
Target
78
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Gallons of oil spilled to
navigable waters per
million program dollar
spent annually on
prevention and
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
No target
established
FY 2008
Target
90,000
Units
gallons
Oil Spills-13
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
preparedness at
Facility Response Plan
(FRP) facilities.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+2.0 FTE) The redirection of 2.0 FTE to the Oil Spill Prevention and Preparedness
program would increase by 27 percent the level of effort EPA has available to ensure
compliance with the FRP and SPCC program requirements. Specifically, these resources
would allow EPA to increase the level of Regional inspections, preparedness drilling,
compliance assessment and other programs.
• (+$574.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$43.6) This reduction reflects an Agencywide effort to reduce international travel as
well as a reduction to program travel expenses in Headquarters and the Regions.
• (+$4.0) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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 Spills-14
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
Oil Spills-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 2006
Actuals
$336,980.6
$8,841.7
$30,871.3
$769.6
$366.1
$66,365.6
$444,194.9
375.1
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 2008
Pres Bud
$303,728.0
$73,859.0
$26,931.0
$901.0
$490.0
$74,956.0
$480,865.0
415.9
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$8,967.9
$3,619.5
($1,499.9)
($15.8)
($9.3)
$1,011.3
$12,073.7
-22.7
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 2008 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. Further, EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible
applicants as directed by Executive Order 13 ISO1 Federal Workforce Transportation.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
Oil Spills-16
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$9.3) This decrease represents projected rent savings in FY 2008.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Annual Appropriations
Act; CWA; CAA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; Executive Orders 10577 and 12598; Department
of Justice United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities Report;
Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure Protection).
Oil Spills-17
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
Oil Spills-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 2006
Actuals
$12,101.5
$617.2
$828.4
$22,210.2
$35,757.3
141.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,552.8
$651.3
$903.1
$21,963.9
$34,071.1
142.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,737.0
$660.0
$901.0
$20,081.0
$32,379.0
141.3
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$184.2
$8.7
($2.1)
($1,882.9)
($1,692.1)
-1.5
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 Strategy1, 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 the Land Multi-Year Plan (MYP)2,
developed with input from across the Agency, which outlines 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 Land Protection and Restoration research program was reviewed by EPA's research
oversight body, the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), in FY 2006 (December 2005). The
BOSC found that the program generates high quality products and conducts appropriately
focused multi-disciplinary research.
1 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Waste Research Strategy. Washington, D.C.: EPA. For more
information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/wastepub.pdf.
2 For more information, see 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 merged 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. The new plan will be posted when peer-review comments are
addressed in the second quarter of FY 2007.
Oil Spills-19
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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
incorporation of exposure simulation with various modeled response actions (R&D Criteria:
Relevance). Remediation research continues on advances associated with physical, chemical,
and biological risk management methods for petroleum and non-petroleum oils spilled into
freshwater and marine environments as well as development of a protocol for testing solidifiers
and treating oil. 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).
In 2006, the Land Protection and Restoration Research Program received an "adequate" rating in
its first PART review. EPA and OMB continue to work to finalize appropriate ambitious
performance measures, develop and implement a protocol for improved budget-performance
integration, and develop a new efficiency measure that captures the cost effectiveness of research
activities. To this end, OMB, EPA, and members of the BOSC formed a workgroup to discuss
long-term measurement of EPA's research and development programs. As part of the
workgroup, EPA has devised program-specific questions to be addressed by the BOSC and used
in support of long-term measurement. To identify appropriate outcome-oriented efficiency
measures for research programs, EPA is soliciting input from the National Academy of Sciences.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program project supports EPA's Enhance Science and Research objective.
Performance measures for this specific program are included under the Superfund Land
Protection and Restoration program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1.8) 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.
• (-$0.3) This is a technical adjustment to realign travel resources across the research
program to better reflect FY 2008 programmatic priorities. There will be no
programmatic impact.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
Oil Spills-20
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Resource Summary Table 1
Program Projects in STAG 1
Program Area: Brownfields 18
Brownfields Projects 19
Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance 22
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages 23
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF 25
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program 28
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF 30
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border 33
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico 36
Program Area: Categorical Grants 37
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection 38
Categorical Grant: Brownfields 40
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information 42
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance 44
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security 46
Categorical Grant: Lead 48
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) 50
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement 53
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation 55
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) 58
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention 62
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) 64
Categorical Grant: Radon 66
Categorical Grant: Sector Program 68
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management 70
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds 73
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance 74
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management 76
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program 78
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC) 81
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks 84
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development 87
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 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
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$3,409,572.7
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,797,448.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,744,450.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($52,998.0)
0.0
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
Energy Policy Act Implementation
Subtotal, 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
FY 2006
Actuals
$9,795.4
$93,549.0
$33,905.5
$905,435.8
$0.0
$0.0
$813,735.3
$49,013.5
$0.0
$1,802,090.1
$360,947.0
$9,707.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$89,119.4
$14,850.0
$687,555.0
$49,500.0
$49,500.0
$841,500.0
$24,750.0
$990.0
$1,619,145.0
$0.0
$9,900.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$89,258.0
$15,500.0
$687,554.0
$35,000.0
$35,000.0
$842,167.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$1,590,221.0
$0.0
$9,900.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.0
$138.6
$650.0
($1.0)
($14,500.0)
($14,500.0)
$667.0
($14,750.0)
($990.0)
($28,924.0)
$0.0
$0.0
STAG-1
-------
Program Project
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)
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
Energy Policy Act Implementation
Categorical Grant: Underground
Storage Tanks (other activities)
Subtotal, 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
FY 2006
Actuals
$51,377.9
$19,308.2
$103,364.9
$4,283.1
$15,115.2
$203,807.2
$19,876.7
$13,749.8
$946.1
$219,826.3
$220,772.4
$4,192.6
$98,590.8
$8,577.4
$1,938.9
$225,269.8
$14,301.8
$6,347.5
$11,723.9
$60,086.9
$10,591.5
$0.0
$14,328.1
$14,328.1
$1,382.1
$11,136.7
$13,360.5
$13,360.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$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
$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
$37,566.7
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$49,495.0
$12,850.0
$103,346.0
$4,950.0
$13,564.0
$194,040.0
$18,711.0
$12,970.0
$18,500.0
$203,164.0
$221,664.0
$5,940.0
$99,100.0
$8,074.0
$2,228.0
$185,180.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$10,940.0
$56,925.0
$10,891.0
$22,274.0
$0.0
$22,274.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.1
($2,000.0)
$0.5
$0.0
$0.9
$0.0
$0.0
$1.1
$0.0
$3.0
$3.0
$0.0
$1.0
$0.5
$0.5
$0.5
($6,930.0)
$0.5
$0.5
$0.0
$1.0
($15,292.7)
$0.0
($15,292.7)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
STAG-2
-------
Program Project
Program Development
Subtotal, Categorical Grants
FY 2006
Actuals
$1,143,191.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,089,183.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,064,971.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($24,212.6)
STAG-3
-------
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
FY 2006 Rescission to Prior Grant Funds
Cancellation of Balances from Prior Years
(Reimbursement and Advanced Construction
Grants)
FY 2008 President's Request
STAG Resources
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2006 FY 2007 Pres
Obligations* Bud
$33,905.5 $14,850.0
$93,549.0 $89,119.4
$9,795.4 $0.0
$905,435.8 $687,555.0
$360,947.0 $0.0
$0.0 $49,500.0
$813,735.3 $841,500.0
$49,013.5 $24,750.0
ce $1,143,191.2 $1,089,183.6
$0.0 $990.0
is -$72,614.3*** $0.0
FY 2008 Pres
Bud
$15,500.0
$89,258.0
$0.0
$687,554.0
$0.0
$35,000.0
$842,167.0
$10,000.0
$1,064,971.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
-$5,000.0
TOTAL
$3,336,958.4
$2,797,448.0
$2,739,450.0
* Reflects FY 2006 1.0% and 0.476% rescission.
** The Clean School Bus Initiative activities are now part of the Diesel Emission Reduction Grants program.
*** Part of the FY 2006 $80 M rescission of prior year funds.
STAG-4
-------
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: Wetlands Program
Development
Clean School Bus Initiative*
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Diesel Emission Reduction Grants
FY 2006
Obligations
$93,549.0
$9,707.3
$51,377.90
$19,308.2
$103,364.9
$4,283.1
$15,115.2
$203,807.2
$19,876.7
$12,907.0
$220,772.4
$4,192.6
$98,590.8
$8,577.4
$1,938.9
$225,269.8
$14,301.8
$6,347.5
$11,723.9
$60,086.9
$10,591.5
$14,328.1
$1,382.1
$13,360.5
$9,795.4
$360,947.0
$0.0
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
$16,830.0
$0.0
$0.0
$49,500.0
FY 2008 Pres
Bud
$89,258.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$12,850.0
$103,346.0
$4,950.0
$13,564.0
$194,040.0
$18,711.0
$12,970.0
$221,664.0
$5,940.0
$99,100.0
$8,074.0
$2,228.0
$185,180.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$10,940.0
$56,925.0
$10,890.0
$22,274.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$0.0
$0.0
$35,000.0
FY 2008 Pres
Bud v. FY 2007
Pres Bud
138.6
$0.0
$0.1
($2,000.0)
$0.5
$0.0
$0.9
$0.0
$0.0
$1.1
$3.0
$0.0
$1.0
$0.5
$0.5
$0.5
($6,930.0)
$0.5
$0.5
$0.0
$0.0
($15,292.7)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
($14,500.0)
STAG-5
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska
Native Villages
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water
SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking
Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico
Border
Infrastructure Assistance: Puerto Rico
$33,905.5
$905,435.8
$813,735.3
$49,013.5
$0.0
$14,850.0
$687,555.0
$841,500.0
$24,750.0
$990.0
$15,500.0
$687,554.0
$842,167.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$650.0
($1.0)
$667.0
($14,750.0)
($990.0)
*Clean School Bus Initiative activities are now part of the Diesel Emission Reduction Grants program.
STAG-6
-------
INFRASTRUCTURE / STAG PROJECT FINANCING
Infrastructure and Special Projects Funds
The President's Request includes a total of $1.679 billion in 2008 for EPA's Infrastructure
programs and State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) projects. Approximately $1.545 billion
will support EPA's Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water, $99.3 million will support EPA's Goal 4:
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems and $35.0 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.
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 2008. Some of these goals
include:
- 90 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 1,160 by the end of FY 2008 paving the way for productive reuse
of these properties. This will bring the total number of sites assessed to 11,000 while
leveraging a total of $10.9 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funds since 1995.
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
In FY 2008, EPA will support the Diesel Emissions Reduction Grants program, authorized by
Title VII, Subtitle G of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. This program focuses on reducing
STAG-7
-------
particulate matter (PM) 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 2008, up to 30 percent of the appropriated funds may 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 emission control 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. 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 $35 million for National Clean Diesel
Campaign grants will leverage at least an additional $72 million in funding assistance.
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.
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 2008 request includes $687.6 million in funding for the CWSRF. More than $24 billion
has been provided to capitalize the CWSRF, almost three times the original Clean Water Act
authorized level of $8.4 billion. Total CWSRF funding available for loans since 1988 through
STAG-8
-------
June 2006, reflecting loan repayments, state match dollars, and other funding sources, is nearly
$61 billion, of which more than $58 billion has been provided to communities as financial
assistance. The following table illustrates the long-term financial picture for the CWSRF:
Annual Federal
Capitalization
$688 million through 201 1
($6.8 billion total, 2004-201 1)
Revolving Level
$3. 4 billion (in 2001 $)
Time Span
20 15 through 2040
The DWSRF is designed to be self-sustaining over time 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 $12.8 billion to finance 4,985 infrastructure improvement projects nationwide,
with a return of $1.73 for every $1 of Federal funds invested. As of June 30, 2006, $7.3 billion
in capitalization grants have been awarded, amounting to loans/assistance of $11 billion.
The following table illustrates the long-term financial picture for the DWSRF:
Annual Federal
Capitalization
$842 million through 2018
Revolving Level
$1.2 billion (in 2001 $)
Time Span
20 19 through 203 9
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 $15.5 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
State of Alaska, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Council and local communities to provide
needed financial and technical assistance.
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Brownfields Environmental Projects
The President's Budget includes $89.3 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 2008, the funding provided will result in the
assessment of 1,000 Brownfields properties. Using EPA grant dollars, the brownfields grantees
STAG-9
-------
will leverage cleanup and redevelopment jobs and $900.0 million in cleanup and redevelopment
funding.
Mexico Border
The President's Request includes a total of $10.0 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 from 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 $10.0 million to address new
needs in FY 2008.
STAG-10
-------
CATEGORICAL GRANTS PROGRAM (STAG)
(Dollars in millions)
Sl,200-i
$1,000-
$1,168
$0
2000
Ena.
2001
Ena.
2002
Ena.
2003
Ena.
2004 2005
Ena. Ena.
2006
Ena.
2007
Pres.
2008
Pres.
*Does not account for the 2006 $80.0 million rescission.
Categorical Grants
In FY 2008, EPA requests a total of $1.065 billion 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 2008, 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.
Also, to help improve EPA's grants management, the agency is developing a standardized
template that all states will use to develop and submit their State grant agreements. The 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. The template will allow for
STAG-11
-------
meaningful comparisons between various states' past and planned activities and performance,
making progress more visible and programs more transparent. EPA will continue to work with
the states on implementation in 2008.
HIGHLIGHTS:
State & Local Air Quality Management, Radon, and Tribal Air Quality Management Grants
The FY 2008 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. Grant funds for State
and Local Air Quality Management and Tribal Air Quality Management are requested in the
amount of $185.2 million and $10.9 million, respectively. These funds provide resources to
multi-state, state, local, and Tribal air pollution control agencies for the development and
implementation of programs for the prevention and control of air pollution for certain research
and demonstration activities, and for monitoring networks.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to work with state and local air pollution control agencies to
develop or implement state implementation plans (SIPs) for the 8-hour ozone standard, the fine
particle (PM-2.5) standard, and regional haze. States must submit the 8-hour ozone SIPs to EPA
in FY 2007, and will continue with their implementation in FY 2008. States must submit
regional haze SIPs to EPA in December 2007 and PM2.5 SIPs in April 2008. States will
incorporate regional haze reduction strategies, developed by regional planning organizations,
into their Regional Haze SIPs.
EPA will work with Federally-recognized Tribal governments nationwide to continue
development and implementation of Tribal air quality management programs. Tribes are active
in protection of the 4% of the land mass of the United States over which they have sovereignty
and work closely with EPA to monitor criteria pollutants and air toxics. Tribes participate
extensively in national monitoring networks and operate and report data from over 300 monitors.
Several Tribes are developing Tribal Implementation Plans for continuing air quality
management programs and roughly 30 will have qualified for and accepted designation to act as
a state (TAS) for at least part of the Clean Air Act.
Lastly, this request includes $8.1 million for Radon grants to continue to focus efforts on priority
activities to achieve health risk reduction. In FY 2008, EPA expects 225,000 additional homes
to have radon reducing features (approximately 145,000 mitigations and 75,000 new homes with
radon resistant new construction), bringing the cumulative number of U.S. homes with radon
reducing features to 2,000,000.
Pesticide Enforcement, Toxics Substance Compliance, & Sector Program Grants
The FY 2008 request 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
STAG-12
-------
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.
Under the Sector program grants, EPA builds 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 support state agencies implementing authorized, delegated, or
approved environmental programs.
Pesticides Program Implementation Grants
The FY 2008 request 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 programs; certification and training of pesticide applicators;
protection of endangered species; Tribal pesticide programs; and integrated pest management
and environmental stewardship. In FY 2008, EPA plans to complete a cumulative 100 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 FY 2008 request 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 2008, EPA expects to reduce the number of child lead poisoning cases by
38,700.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to award Targeted Grants to Reduce Childhood Lead Poisoning.
These 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. In addition, EPA will continue a grant program initiated
in FY 2007 which focuses on low-income communities through grants to national organizations
engaged in working with these communities. This grant program is designed to help national
STAG-13
-------
and community organizations reach under-served populations that may have a disproportionate
number of children with elevated blood lead levels.
Pollution Prevention Grants
The FY 2008 request includes $5.9 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 2008, EPA is targeting a reduction of 469 million pounds of pollution, 1.7 billion gallons of
water conserved, 50.1 million dollars saved through reduction in pollution and 1.3 billion BTUs
conserved.
Environmental Information Grants
In FY 2008, EPA requests $12.9 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 (IM/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. With nodes established in all 50 states, in FY 2008 this grant program will
emphasize supporting all partners in the development and exchange of regulatory and non-
traditional data flows in FY 2008.
State and Tribal Underground Storage Tanks Program
The FY 2008 request includes $22.3 million for Underground Storage Tank (UST) grants. In FY
2008, EPA will continue to assist states and Tribes in implementing the UST program and will
provide assistance and alternative mechanisms to states to help them meet their new
responsibilities authorized under the Energy Policy Act. These new duties include 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, and ensuring owners and operators routinely and correctly monitor all
regulated USTs and piping in accordance with regulations.
EPA has the primary responsibility for implementation of the UST program in Indian Country.
In FY 2008, grants under the FY 1999 Appropriations Act (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 also will
implement the UST Tribal strategy developed in FY 2006 in Indian Country.
STAG-14
-------
Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grants
In FY 2008, EPA requests $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 2008,
EPA expects to increase the number of hazardous waste facilities with permits in order to meet
the 2008 goal of 95 percent coverage and increase the percent of annual permit renewals in line
with 2008 requirements of a 50 percent annual renewal rate.
By the end of FY 2008, EPA and the authorized states will also control human exposures to
contamination at 95 percent of the highest priority RCRA corrective action facilities (1,968
facilities), control migration of contaminated groundwater at 80 percent of these facilities, and
complete the construction of final remedies at 20 percent of these facilities.
Brownfields Grants
In FY 2008, EPA requests $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 2008, the funding provided
will result in the assessment of 1,000 Brownfields properties. Using EPA grant dollars, the
brownfields grantees will leverage $900.0 million in cleanup and redevelopment funding.
Water Pollution Control (Clean Water Act Section 106) Grants
The FY 2008 EPA request 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. EPA will work with states to implement the
new rules governing discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). States
and authorized Tribes will continue to review and update their water quality standards as
required by the Clean Water Act. The Agency's goal is that 87 percent of state submissions will
be approvable in 2008. EPA also encourages states to continually review and update the water
quality criteria in their standards to reflect the latest scientific information from EPA and other
sources. EPA's goal for 2008 is that 68 percent of states will have updated their standards to
reflect the latest scientific information in the past three years.
Wetlands Grants
In FY 2008, the request 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, restoring, and
STAG-15
-------
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 2008, EPA requests $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 2008, 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.
Tribal General Assistance Program Grants
In FY 2008, EPA's request includes $56.9 million for the Tribal General Assistance Program
(GAP) to help Federally-recognized Tribes and intertribal consortia develop, implement and
assume environmental programs. In FY 2008, 50% of Federally-recognized Tribes and
intertribal Consortia, out of a universe of 572 eligible entities, will have access to an
environmental presence, or representative, to administer delegated environmental programs.
Homeland Security Grants
In FY 2008, the request 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. Fifty-six states and territories are eligible for Homeland Security grants.
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Grants
The FY 2008, EPA requests $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
continue to address Classes I, II, and III existing wells determined to be in significant violation
and Class V wells determined to be in violation in FY 2008. Additionally, EPA and the states
will close or permit Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal wells (Class V) identified during FY 2008.
BEACH Act Grants
The FY 2008 request 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
STAG-16
-------
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 - Clean Water Act Section 319)
In FY 2008, EPA requests $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. EPA's goal is to reduce annually 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-17
-------
Program Area: Brownfields
STAG-18
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$93,549.0
$9,319.5
$102,868.5
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$89,119.4
$0.0
$89,119.4
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$89,258.0
$0.0
$89,258.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$138.6
$0.0
$138.6
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 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Section 104(k).
The Brownfields program also 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. For more information, refer to
http://www.epa.gov/docs/swerosps/bf/partners/federal_partnerships.htm.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Funding requested for FY 2008 will be used to support the following activities:
• Funding and technical support for 109 assessment grants for recipients to inventory,
assess, and conduct cleanup and redevelopment planning at brownfields sites. In FY
STAG-19
-------
2008, the funding provided will result in the assessment of 1,000 brownfields
properties. Brownfields grantees will leverage 5,000 cleanup and redevelopment jobs
and $900,000,000 in cleanup and redevelopment funding.
• RLF capitalization grants and cleanup grants for 63 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.
• Assessment and cleanup of abandoned underground storage tanks (USTs) and other
petroleum contamination found on brownfields properties in approximately 43
brownfields communities.
• Brownfields job training and development grants of up to $200,000 each over two
years. This funding will provide for 12 new job training grants for community
residents to take advantage of new jobs leveraged by the assessment and cleanup of
brownfields.
• 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.
In 2003, the Brownfields program received an "Adequate" PART rating, citing a clear purpose
and achievement of performance targets. The program is implementing performance
improvement plans related to performance measures, data collection, and program reviews and is
on schedule to meet implementation deadlines.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Brownfield properties
assessed.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
1,000
FY 2007
Target
1,000
FY 2008
Target
1,000
Units
Assessments
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Acres of Brownfields
properties made ready
for reuse.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
225
Units
Acres
STAG-20
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Billions of dollars of
cleanup and
redevelopment funds
leveraged at
Brownfields sites.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
1.0
FY 2007
Target
0.9
FY 2008
Target
1.0
Units
Billion
dollars
Performance goals and measures for the Brownfields Projects program are currently a
component of the overall Brownfields program measures. As a result, the Brownfields EPM
program also contributes to the achievement of these performance measures and the Brownfields
Categorical Grant program contributes to the achievement of the "properties assessed" measure.
This also contributes to EPA efforts to assess and clean up brownfields, as described in EPA's
2006-2011 Strategic Plan.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,561.4) This decrease will reduce contractor support and for interagency agreements
that support training, research and technical assistance grants awarded under Section 104
(k)(6). The reduction will not impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and
effectiveness in carrying out its programs.
• (+$3,700.0) This increase will support additional Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund
(RLF), and Cleanup grants in FY 2008 by funding up to eight additional site assessment
grants and capitalizing RLF and award cleanup grants for up to three additional
communities.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA as amended by SBLRBRA (P.L. 107-118); RCRA Section 8001; GMRA (1990);
SWDA; FGCAA.
STAG-21
-------
Program Area: Infrastructure Assistance
STAG-22
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$33,905.5
$33,905.5
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$14,850.0
$14,850.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,500.0
$15,500.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$650.0
$650.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Alaska Rural and Native Village (ANV) 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 improve or
construct drinking water and wastewater treatment 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.
(See http://www.epa.gov/owm/mab/indian/anvrs.htm for more information.)
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The ANV 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
FY 2008 investment of $15.5 million will leverage funding to provide an additional one percent
of the serviceable homes in rural Alaska (total homes approximately 36,000) with wastewater
service and drinking water that meets public health standards. In FY 2008, the Agency will
continue to work with the State of Alaska to address sanitation conditions and determine how to
maximize the Federal investment in rural Alaska.
During 2004, the Alaska Native Village Water Infrastructure program underwent a PART review
and received a rating of "ineffective." In response to the program deficiencies identified in the
PART, the Agency has made personnel and policy changes to enable more focused and intensive
oversight of the Alaska Native Village grant program, through cost analyses, 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. The FY 2005 Alaska State Single Audit concludes that all findings in the
previous (FY 2004) audit have been addressed or significant progress was made in FY 2005,
which should lead to completion of all recommendations by FY 2006. No new
recommendations were made for the program by the auditors. In the 2006 PART reassessment,
STAG-23
-------
the program received a rating of "adequate". These findings help illustrate the potential
effectiveness of new programmatic improvements.
The 2006 PART reassessment included a requirement for an enhancement of the State of Alaska
web based reporting system. These enhancements have been initiated by the State and will be
completed in 2007. In addition, the State of Alaska will complete an independent review of the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium financial process and records. The program is also
addressing other 2006 PART findings and recommendations.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of serviceable
rural Alaska homes
with access to drinking
water supply and
wastewater disposal.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
88
Units
Homes
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Number of homes that
received improved
service per $1,000,000
of State and Federal
funding.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
85
Units
Households
Work under this program supports EPA's Protect Water Quality objective.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$650.0) The increase will support the Agency's efforts to address the sanitation
infrastructure needs of rural communities and Alaska Native Villages.
Statutory Authority:
SOW A Amendments of 1996.
STAG-24
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$905,435.8
$905,435.8
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$687,555.0
$687,555.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$687,554.0
$687,554.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($1.0)
($1.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program 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. (See http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfmance/cwsrf for more
information.)
State 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 2007, the Federal government had
invested more than $24 billion in the state CWSRFs. The revolving nature of the funds and
substantial additions from states has magnified that investment to make available $61 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Recognizing the substantial remaining need for wastewater infrastructure, EPA will provide
annual capitalization to the CWSRFs through 2011, meeting its total capitalization target of $6.8
billion for 2004-2011. This continued Federal investment, along with other traditional sources of
financing (including increased local revenues), will result in substantial progress toward
addressing the 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
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.
STAG-25
-------
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 CWSRF Indian Set-Aside, which will provide for the development
of sanitation facilities for Tribes.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Grant Program underwent a PART assessment in 2003
and received an "adequate" rating. The PART review called for improved measures that capture
a broad range of public health and environmental benefits provided by the program. In response,
EPA has worked with its state partners to develop improved performance measures that link
CWSRF financing to the protection and restoration of our nation's waters. This effort led to the
development of a new CWSRF benefits reporting system designed to track progress in meeting
public health and environmental goals of the program.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of waterbody
segments identified by
States in 2002 as not
attaining standards,
where water quality
standards are now fully
attained (cumulative).
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
1,100
Units
Number of
Segments
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of all major
publicly-owned
treatment works
(POTWs) that comply
with their permitted
wastewater discharge
standards.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
86
Units
Percent
POTWs
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Fund utilization rate
for the CWSRF.
FY 2006
Actual
94.7
FY 2006
Target
93.3
FY 2007
Target
93.4
FY 2008
Target
93.5
Units
Rate
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
STAG-26
-------
financial resources. The Agency expects the loan commitment rate to continue to be strong. In
addition, because the total capitalization remains relatively the same, the program is projected to
meet its long-term revolving level target of $3.4 billion. As of June 30, 2006, approximately $3
billion was available for loans.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1.0) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
STAG-27
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$49,500.0
$49,500.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$35,000.0
$35,000.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($14,500.0)
($14,500.0)
0.0
* The Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant program has assumed all responsibilities formerly associated with Clean
School Bus Grants program. The Budget Authority for the Clean School Bus Grants program is $14,474.9K in the
FY 2006 Actuals.
Program Project Description:
These grant funds authorized in Sections 791-797 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 supports the
National Clean Diesel program. Through this program EPA focuses on reducing particulate
matter (PM) by up to 95% from existing diesel engines, including both on-highway and nonroad
equipment. This program also reduces 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 also supports diesel engine retrofits, rebuilds and replacements, and anti-idling
measures among other clean diesel strategies. Five sectors are targeted for emissions reductions
from the existing U.S. fleet: freight, construction, school buses, agriculture, and ports. Grants
will be provided to eligible entities in areas of the country that have air quality concerns. Up to
30 percent of the funds appropriated for diesel emissions reduction grants may be used to
provide formula grants to states to establish and support state grant or loan programs.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
With the 2008 funding, EPA expects to fund at least 200 new grants deploying technology in
various sectors that use 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.
STAG-28
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program.
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 $35 million for National Clean Diesel Campaign grants will leverage at
least an additional $72 million in funding assistance and reduce PM by approximately 5,040
tons, achieving up to an estimated $1.4 billion dollars in health benefits.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$14,500.0) This reflects a reduction which will continue to achieve significant
reductions in PM emission levels and continue support for the Clean Diesel grants
program. Programs similar to the Diesel Grants have been adopted in California and
Texas and are expected to achieve similar results.
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-29
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$813, 735.3
$813,735.3
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$841,500.0
$841,500.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$842,167.0
$842,167.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$667.0
$667.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) 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 (SDWA) requirements and to protect public
health. To reduce occurrences of serious public health threats and to ensure safe drinking water
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. The program emphasizes
that states should provide funds to small and disadvantaged communities and to programs that
encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water. The Federal
investment is designed to be used in concert with other sources of funds to address water quality
needs. Capitalization grant funds also may be used by states to provide other types of assistance
that promote prevention and encourage stronger drinking water system management programs.
These optional state set-asides could potentially equal 31 percent of the state's capitalization
grant. However, historically the states have set-aside a total of 16 percent of the funds awarded
to them. For fiscal years 2006-2009, appropriated funds are allocated to the states in accordance
with each state's proportion of total drinking water infrastructure need as determined by the 2003
Needs Survey and Assessment, with the statutory constraint that each state and the District of
Columbia receive no less than one percent of the allotment and the Virgin Islands and Pacific
Trust Territories together receive 0.33 percent.
Prior to allotting funds to the states, EPA is required by Section 1452(o) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), as amended, to set-aside $2.0 million to pay the costs of small system
monitoring for unregulated contaminants. EPA also reserves 1.5 percent of appropriated funds
for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages, in accordance with Section 1452(i) of SDWA, as
amended. These funds are awarded either directly to Tribes or, on behalf of Tribes, to the Indian
Health Service through Interagency Agreements.
(See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html for more information.)
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Providing drinking water that meets health safety standards often requires an investment in the
STAG-30
-------
construction or maintenance of drinking water infrastructure. The DWSRF program supports
states in helping public water systems fund infrastructure improvements needed to protect public
health and achieve or maintain compliance with the SDWA. Through this program, states offer
low interest loans to help public water systems across the nation make 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. For FY 2008, the DWSRF program has set a target of providing
over 440 additional infrastructure improvement projects to public water systems.
The DWSRF Program underwent a PART assessment in 2002 and a reassessment in 2004. The
program received a rating of "adequate" in 2004. The reassessment of the DWSRF program
found that it had implemented acceptable performance measures. The program also tracks the
national long-term average revolving level of the fund to assess long-term sustainability.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent population
served by CWS that
receive drinking water
that meets all
applicable health-based
DW standards through
approaches including
effective treatment and
source water
protection.
FY 2006
Actual
89
FY 2006
Target
93
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
90
Units
Percent
Population
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent community
water systems that
provide drinking water
that meets all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards.
FY 2006
Actual
89.4
FY 2006
Target
93
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
89.5
Units
Perrent
Systems
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of additional
projects initiating
operations.
FY 2006
Actual
399
FY 2006
Target
425
FY 2007
Target
433
FY 2008
Target
440
Units
Projects
STAG-31
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Fund utilization rate
fortheDWSRF.
FY 2006
Actual
86.9
FY 2006
Target
83.3
FY 2007
Target
84
FY 2008
Target
86
Units
Percent Rate
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$667.0) The additional resources will further support attainment of the Agency's Water
Safe to Drink Objective by providing additional capitalization of State Revolving Loan
Funds. Currently, the program is on target to reach the long-term revolving level target
of $1.2 billion by 2018.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
STAG-32
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$49,013.5
$49,013.5
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$24,750.0
$24,750.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($14,750.0)
($14,750.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The United States and Mexico share more than 2,000 miles of common border. More than 14.6
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.
The U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Program, a joint effort between the U.S. and Mexican
governments, will continue to work with the 10 border states and local communities to improve
the region's 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 decreasing the
number of homes without 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.
(See http://www.epa.gov/r6border/index.htm for more information.)
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 results of the recently implemented prioritization process indicate that the FY 2008
investment of $10.0 million will fund 3-5 projects for clean and safe water serving
approximately 30,000 people. Also, of the $880 million in funds appropriated to EPA, there is
an unobligated balance of approximately $300 million of those funds at the North American
Development Bank, which will provide additional funds to complete water and wastewater
projects in various stages of construction. This level of funding will allow the program to meet
STAG-33
-------
its annual targets in the stated PART performance measures below. The Agency also will
continue to support the planned assessment of shared and transboundary surface waters to
facilitate the collection, management, and exchange of environmental data essential for effective
water management. In addition, the Agency will support the protection of public health at border
area coastal beaches and improvements in efficiency of service provider operations.
The U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program underwent a PART evaluation for the
first time in 2004 and received a rating of "adequate." EPA took specific actions beginning in
FY 2005 to strengthen the program and establish new controls to manage the Border
Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF). These actions focus on improving fiscal management
while improving project completion rates to ensure safe drinking water for communities along
the border.
EPA has developed baselines and targets for performance measures established during the PART
review as reflected in the tables below.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Additional people
served per million
dollars (US and
Mexico federal
expenditures).
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
3,200
Units
People/$M
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of additional
homes provided
adequate safe drinking
water in the Mexican
border area that lacked
access to safe drinking
water in 2003 .
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
2,500
Units
More homes
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of additional
homes provided
adequate wastewater
sanitation in the
Mexican border area
that lacked access to
wastewater sanitation
in 2003.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
15,000
Units
More homes
STAG-34
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$14,750.0) This level of funding will allow the Agency to continue efforts toward
providing access to safe drinking water and sanitary systems for underserved
communities in the U.S.-Mexico Border area. EPA is closely monitoring fund
disbursements and project completion rates to ensure sufficient funding for current and
future projects.
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-35
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$990.0
$990.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($990.0)
($990.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program was created to contribute to the design for an upgrade of Metropolitano's Sergio
Cuervas drinking water treatment plant in San Juan, Puerto Rico. EPA contributed funds based
on a FY 2004 design cost estimate for bringing the plant into compliance with current regulatory
requirements.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA is not requesting funding for this program project in FY 2008.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supported multiple performance objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$990.0) This decrease ends Federal funding for the program due to fulfillment of EPA's
share of the design phase costs.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
STAG-36
-------
Program Area: Categorical Grants
STAG-37
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$9,707.3
$9,707.3
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
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 consultation with states and other organizations. The allocation takes into
consideration: beach season length, beach miles, and beach use.
(See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ for more information.)
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
States and territories currently monitor 4,025 beaches.
monitoring beaches in FY 2008, 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, through EPA's Beach Advisory Closing On-
line Notification (BEACON) system, information 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-38
-------
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 2006
Actual
97
FY 2006
Target
94
FY 2007
Target
95
FY 2008
Target
96
Units
Perrent
Days/Season
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; BEACH Act of 2000.
STAG-39
-------
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 2006
Actuals
557,377.9
$51,377.9
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$49,494.9
$49,494.9
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.1
$0.1
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. Generally, brownfields, unlike Superfund sites, 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 the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Section 128(a), grants are provided to states and Tribes for their response programs.
The state and 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
for a variety of purposes including developing a public record, capitalizing a Revolving Loan
Fund for brownfields, purchasing environmental insurance, and conducting site-specific related
activities such as assessments at brownfield sites. For more information, refer to
http://www.epa.gov/docs/swerosps/bf/pubs/st res_prog report.htm.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
Building the capacity of states and Tribes to 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 across 50 states, U.S. territories,
and approximately 30 Tribes.
In the 2003 PART process, the Brownfields program received an "adequate" rating, citing a clear
purpose and achievement of performance targets. The program is implementing performance
improvement plans related to performance measures, data collection, and program reviews and is
on schedule to meet implementation deadlines.
STAG-40
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's communities' objective. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$0.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA as amended by SBLRBRA (P.L. 107-118); RCRA Section 8001; GMRA (1990);
SWDA; FGCAA.
STAG-41
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$19,308.2
$19,308.2
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$14,850.0
$14,850.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$12,850.0
$12,850.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($2,000.0)
($2,000.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
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 Exchange Network is an internet and standards-based, secure
information network that facilitates electronic reporting, sharing, integration, analysis, and use of
environmental data from many different sources. The funding helps EPA's partners acquire and
develop the hardware and software needed to connect to the Exchange Network, and to develop
or acquire the data needed for decision making.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, the Exchange Network Grants Program will emphasize activities in three areas:
1) Developing Tribal and territorial infrastructure - Although ongoing, this aspect will start to be
de-emphasized because all 50 states are expected to have operating nodes.
2) Supporting the development and exchange of regulatory and non-traditional data flows -
Because all 50 states are expected to have operational nodes, the major emphasis of the
Exchange Network Grant program will shift toward supporting all partners in the development
and exchange of regulatory and non-traditional data flows. Exchange Network partners will
continue to need support in the development of the data available through their nodes. These
efforts will support the exchange of data for regulatory programs, but also support, for the
important business needs of the Exchange Network partners in terms of facilitating better
environmental and health decisions; and
3) Supporting multi-partner projects to plan, mentor, and train Exchange Network partners, and
to develop and exchange data - These projects help encourage broader participation by existing
and new partners, support innovation, and improve the quality of grant products because more
input is obtained and the products are used by a greater number of partners.
STAG-42
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,000.0) This reduction reflects the continued shift away from building infrastructure
and toward adding data flows and web services.
Statutory Authority:
Authority for the Exchange Network Grant program to date has been provided in annual
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies, as follows: FY 2002, Public Law 107-73; FY 2003, Public Law 108-7;
FY 2004, Public Law 108-199; FY 2005, Public Law 108-447; and FY 2007, Public Law 109-54.
STAG-43
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$103,364.9
$103,364.9
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$103,345.5
$103,345.5
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$103,346.0
$103,346.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.5
$0.5
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes EPA to assist state programs
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 then 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 funding also
provides for the direct implementation of the RCRA program for the States of Iowa and Alaska,
which have not been authorized to operate in lieu of the Federal program. Funding distributed
through these grants also supports Tribes, where appropriate, in conducting hazardous waste
work on Tribal lands.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 to meet the FY 2008 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. Annually, 50 permit renewals are required for FYs 2006-2008.
STAG-44
-------
• Issue permit modifications as needed.
• Operate comprehensive compliance monitoring and enforcement actions related to
the RCRA hazardous waste program.
• Work with facilities to complete site assessments, control human exposures, control
the migration of contaminated groundwater, and make determinations that
construction of final remedies has been completed as part of the efforts toward
meeting the FY 2008 goals for the RCRA Corrective Action Program.
This program was included in the 2004 PART review of the RCRA Base, Permits and Grants
Program, 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 per dollar of
program cost. The FY 2005 baseline was set in July 2006, and the program anticipates
developing efficiency measure target information in FY 2007.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the objectives of preserving and restoring land. Currently,
there are no performance measures specific to this program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$0.5) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
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-45
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$4,283.1
$4,283.1
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$4,950.0
$4,950.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,950.0
$4,950.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA provides grants to states for coordination activities for critical water infrastructure security
efforts. 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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 drinking water and wastewater utilities' and preparedness
capabilities;
• 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 (e.g., mutual aid agreements), 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.
(See http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/financeassist.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.
STAG-46
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA; CWA; and the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of
2002.
STAG-47
-------
Categorical Grant: Lead
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$15,115.2
$15,115.2
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$13,563.1
$13,563.1
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$13,564.0
$13,564.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.9
$0.9
0.0
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. This Categorical Grant program contributes to this effort by maintaining a national
infrastructure of trained and certified lead remediation professionals.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
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.
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 the 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.
To meet the Federal goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern by
2010, EPA recognizes that additional attention and assistance must be given to our most
vulnerable populations - those with rates of lead poisoning in excess of the national average, and
those areas where conditions indicate potentially high rates of lead poisoning but where
screening has not yet occurred with sufficient frequency. To address this issue, in FY 2008 EPA
will continue to award targeted grants to reduce childhood lead poisoning. These 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. In addition, EPA will continue a grant program initiated in FY 2007
STAG-48
-------
which focuses on low-income communities through grants to national organizations engaged in
working with these communities. This grant program is designed to help national organizations
and community organizations reach under-served populations that may have a disproportionate
number of children with elevated blood lead levels.
The Lead program underwent its first PART in 2005, receiving a "moderately effective" rating.
Through the PART, EPA introduced 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. Through the PART Improvement Plan process, EPA improved the consistency of
grantee and regional accountability and improved the linkage between program funding and
program goals with an emphasis on program grant and contract funding. In FY 2008, the Agency
will be implementing additional PART-recommended improvement plans to enhance program
partners' accountability and results and to target program resources and activities on populations
that face a significant risk of being exposed to lead. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/index.html.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports PART measures listed under Toxic Substances: Lead Risk
Reduction Program (EPM).
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 Presidents Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$0.9) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA.
STAG-49
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$203,807.2
$203,807.2
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$194,040.0
$194,040.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$194,040.0
$194,040.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Nonpoint source pollution is the greatest remaining source of surface and ground water quality
impairments and threats in the United States. Grants under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) are provided to states, territories, and Tribes to help them implement their EPA-approved
nonpoint source (NPS) management programs by remediating NFS 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 regulatory and non-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 waters (listed under Section 303(d))
to meet water quality standards. See http://www.epa. gov/fedrgstr/EP A-
WATER/2003/October/Dav-23/w26755.htm for more information.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
The pervasiveness of nonpoint source pollution requires cooperation and involvement from EPA,
other Federal agencies, the states, and concerned citizens to solve NPS pollution problems. In
2008 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.
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 and enable states to determine the most cost-effective means to
meet their water quality goals through the analysis of sources of pollutants of concern; the
sources' relative significance; available cost-effective techniques to address those sources;
availability of needed resources, authorities and community involvement to affect change; and
monitoring that will enable states and local communities to track progress and make changes
STAG-50
-------
over time as they deem necessary to meet their water quality goals. Full requirements for these
plans are described in detail in the NFS program grant guidelines.
EPA will continue to forge and strengthen strategic partnerships with the agricultural and
forestry communities, developers, and other groups that have an interest in achieving water
quality goals in a cost-effective manner. Agricultural sources of pollution in the form of excess
fertilizer or pesticides have had a particularly profound effect on water quality. Therefore, EPA
will work closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ensure that Federal
resources — including both Section 319 grants and Farm Bill funds - are managed in a
coordinated manner to protect water quality from agricultural pollution sources. More broadly,
EPA will work with states to ensure that they develop and implement their watershed-based
plans in close cooperation with state conservationists, soil and water conservation districts, and
all other interested parties within the watersheds.
EPA will continue to track the steady increases in the cumulative dollar value and number of
projects financed with Clean Water State Revolving (CWSRF) loans to prevent polluted runoff.
Properly managed onsite/decentralized systems are an important part of the nation's wastewater
infrastructure, and EPA will encourage state, Tribal, and local governments to adopt effective
management systems and use CWSRF to finance systems where appropriate.
In 2004, the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program received an overall rating of "adequate" from
OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review. The Nonpoint Source Program
created three annual output measures and one long-term outcome measure. The annual output
measures are to annually reduce the amount of runoff of phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment
through Section 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 nitrogen and sediment, but the phosphorus 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, like pathogens, temperature, or acidity.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Reduction in
phosphorus loadings
(millions of pounds).
FY 2006
Actual
Available
in 2007
FY 2006
Target
4.5
FY 2007
Target
4.5
FY 2008
Target
4.5
Units
Pounds in
Millions
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Additional pounds (in
millions) of reduction
to total nitrogen
loadings.
FY 2006
Actual
Available
in 2007
FY 2006
Target
8.5
FY 2007
Target
8.5
FY 2008
Target
8.5
Units
Pounds in
Millions
STAG-51
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Additional tons of
reduction to total
sediment loadings.
FY 2006
Actual
Available
in 2007
FY 2006
Target
700,000
FY 2007
Target
700,000
FY 2008
Target
700,000
Units
Pounds
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Section 3 19 funds ($
million) expended per
partially or fully
restored waterbody.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
2.8
Units
Million
Dollars
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of waterbodies
identified by States (in
2000 or subsequent
years) as being
primarily NPS-
impaired that are
partially or fully
restored.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
250
Units
Waterbodies
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
STAG-52
-------
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$19,876.7
$19,876.7
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Pesticide Enforcement grants 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 to foster knowledge
of and compliance with environmental laws pertaining to pesticides.1
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will award state and Tribal enforcement grants to assist in the implementation
of the compliance and enforcement provisions of 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 will
continue to conduct compliance monitoring inspections on core pesticide requirements.
EPA refined PART measure data collection procedures with a Federal and state workgroup in
2005 for the EPA Pesticide Enforcement Grant Program that received an "ineffective" rating in
2004. EPA negotiated final commitments for the collection of new data for pesticide
enforcement grant PART measures with states and Tribes in 2006 based on PART-approved
measures. EPA began to receive this data in January 2007 and has started to analyze the data to
develop three-year rolling average baselines and targets.
Performance Targets:
The "ineffective" PART rating for this program in 2004 reflected the absence of data needed to
implement program outcome and efficiency measures called for by the PART. To address this
1 For additional information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/fifra.html.
STAG-53
-------
problem, new measures were developed by the program, and approved by OMB during the 2004
PART review. In FY 2005, EPA negotiated performance data collection requirements with
grantees for the new outcome and efficiency measures. EPA began to receive the grantees' data
in January 2007 and has started to analyze the information to develop program metrics for
demonstrating results. EPA plans to incorporate these program outcome and efficiency program
measures, with baselines and specified targets, in the FY 2010 Grant Guidance. No prior data
exists to evaluate the performance of these measures over a multi-year period. Work under this
program supports the objective to improve compliance under the compliance and environmental
stewardship strategic goal.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
FIFRA.
STAG-54
-------
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Chemical and Pesticide Risks
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$13,749.8
$13,749.8
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$12,968.9
$12,968.9
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$12,970.0
$12,970.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1.1
$1.1
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Agency provides grants to states, Tribes, partners, and supporters for worker
protection/certification and training, endangered species and Tribal activities and pesticide
environmental stewardship. EPA's mission as related to pesticides is to protect human health
and the environment from pesticide risk and to realize the value of pesticide availability by
taking into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any
pesticide. The Agency achieves this task through implementation of our statutes and regulatory
actions. Pesticides Program Implementation Grants ensure that pesticide regulatory decisions
made at the national level are translated into results on the local level. States and Tribes provide
essential support in implementing pesticides 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 location of potential risks
from pesticides since they are in a position to better evaluate risks and implement risk reduction
measures.
FY 2008 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
be a major keystone in the success of the Agency to protect human health. For additional
information please visit http://www.epa.gov/oppfod01/safety/applicators/applicators.htm.
STAG-55
-------
Tribal
The Agency will support Tribal activities in implementing pesticide programs through grants.
Tribal program outreach activities support Tribal capacity to protect human health by reducing
risk from pesticides in Indian country. This task is challenging given that aspects of Native
Americans' lifestyles, such as subsistence fishing or consumption of plants that were specifically
grown as food and possibly exposed to pesticides not intended for food use may increase
exposure to some chemicals or create unique chemical exposure scenarios. For additional
information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/tribes/.
Endangered Species Protection Program (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. This
initiative supports the Agency's challenge to protect the environment from pesticide risk.
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP):
The PESP is a grant program that forms partnerships with pesticide users to reduce pesticide use
and risk through pollution prevention strategies and the use of Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) techniques. Organizations committed to reducing pesticide risk are eligible to join PESP
either as a partner or supporter. Partners are organizations that use pesticides or represent
pesticide users that support voluntary partnerships among EPA and national, state, and local
organizations for projects which reduce the risks from pesticide use in agricultural and
nonagricultural settings.
PESP currently has 184 partner/supporter organizations ranging from federal partners (e.g.,
Department of Defense) to state partners (e.g., Maryland Department of Agriculture), to trade
associates and even individual companies. 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 also will 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. See
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppdl/PESP/index.htm for additional information.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the Chemical and Pesticide Risks objective. Currently there
are no performance measures specific to this program.
STAG-56
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+1.1) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA; ESA.
STAG-57
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$220,772.4
$220,772.4
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$221,661.0
$221,661.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$221,664.0
$221,664.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$3.0
$3.0
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
also may be used to fund services from non-profit organizations, through the Senior
Environmental Employment (SEE) program, to assist Regional offices who are overseeing direct
implementation programs. 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.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
This program supports states, interstates, and Tribes in their efforts 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 over 2,250 impaired waters by
2012. Through the Section 106 grant program, the Agency continues to support prevention and
control measures of state water quality management programs: 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.
EPA will collaborate with state and Tribal partners to further enhance water monitoring
programs consistent with comprehensive monitoring strategies and to collaborate on statistically
valid surveys of the condition of the nation's waters. In FY 2008, states and Tribes will be
analyzing data on lake conditions for a report on baseline conditions of lakes due in 2009. The
STAG-58
-------
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 2008, $18,500,000
will be designated for states and Tribes that participate in collecting this statistically valid water
monitoring data and implement enhancements in their water monitory programs.
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. States and EPA
have made significant progress in the development and approval of TMDLs (cumulatively over
20,000 completed through FY 2006) and expect to develop more than 2,500 TMDLs in 2008.
Resources in this program will continue to support TMDL implementation (including through
issuance of permits that include limitations consistent with TMDLs); states will be encouraged to
ensure that TMDLs are implemented.
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, in FY 2007, EPA is expected to finalize a rule
that incorporates financial incentives for states that implement adequate National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) fee systems. In FY 2008, States who are able to
demonstrate that they have recouped a significant portion of their permit program costs through
the collection of fees will receive additional funds to support their priority water quality
activities.
New rules will be finalized in FY 2007 for discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs) and states will work to assure that permits cover most CAFOs by FY 2008.
In addition, states will continue to work toward the FY 2008 goal of 100 percent of 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 87 percent of state and Tribal submissions will
be approvable in FY 2008. 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 2008 is that 68 percent of states will have updated their standards to
reflect the latest scientific information in the past three years.
A key performance measure for the Surface Water Protection program is the percentage of water
body segments, identified by States in 2002 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 toward reaching the FY 2012 target for this measure.
STAG-59
-------
EPA is working with States to develop detailed plans documenting how stakeholders will work
together to achieve these goals.
(See http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/pollutioncontrol.htm for more information.)
This program underwent evaluation through the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) in
2005 and received a rating of "adequate." The Agency has been successful in meeting or
exceeding performance targets agreed to during this process. The PART review identified areas
requiring improvement plans (follow-up actions). In response, the Agency:
• Continues to target, through an allocation formula, a portion of the appropriated funds to
support of the national probabilistic monitoring survey; and
• Drafted a rule which will provide incentives, through a set-aside of appropriated funds,
for states to implement or improve their permit fee programs, increasing the resources
available for water quality programs. The proposed rule was published in the Federal
Register on January 4, 2007.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Number of TMDL's
that are established by
States and approved by
EPA on schedule
consistent with
national policy
(cumulative).
FY 2006
Actual
19,368
FY 2006
Target
18,692
FY 2007
Target
21,923
FY 2008
Target
24,411
Units
TMDLs
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Percentage of high
priority state NPDES
permits that are
scheduled to be
reissued.
FY 2006
Actual
96.4
FY 2006
Target
95
FY 2007
Target
95
FY 2008
Target
95
Units
Percent
Permits
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Cost per water segment
restored.
FY 2006
Actual
576,618
FY 2006
Target
1,358,351
FY 2007
Target
636,744
FY 2008
Target
685,611
Units
Dollars per
Water
Segment
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Percentage of majors in
Significant
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
FY 2006
Target
22.5
FY 2007
Target
22.5
FY 2008
Target
22.5
Units
Percent
Majors
STAG-60
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
Noncompliance (SNC)
at any time during the
fiscal year.
FY 2006
Actual
in 2007
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Percent of States &
Territories that, within
the preceding 3-yr.
period, submitted new
or revised water quality
criteria acceptable to
EPA that reflect new
scientific information
from EPA or sources
not considered in
previous standards.
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
68
Units
Percent
States &
Territories
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of waterbody
segments identified by
States in 2002 as not
attaining standards,
where water quality
standards are now fully
attained (cumulative).
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
1,100
Units
Number of
Segments
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3.0) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
STAG-61
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$4,192.6
$4,192.6
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,940.0
$5,940.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,940.0
$5,940.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Pollution Prevention (P2) programs focus 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 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.
This 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 pollution prevention
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.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to provide grants to states and Tribes to support their pollution
prevention efforts. The Agency also will continue to support 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.
The program will focus on stronger review of the applicant's ability to measure the results of the
grants, particularly environmental outcomes. EPA will require grant applicants to demonstrate
and document either outcome or output measures. EPA will give preference to applicants whose
work plans address outcome-based measures derived from the P2 targets in EPA's Strategic Plan.
Within the national grant guidance, EPA will provide ranking criteria 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. The following
actions further reinforce EPA efforts to track environmental outcomes from P2 grants:
STAG-62
-------
• EPA Regional managers certify that awards contribute to strategic targets and the annual
performance commitments;
• 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.
EPA's Pollution Prevention Program, including this Categorical Grant Program, underwent
PART review in 2006 and received a "moderately effective" rating. The PART improvement
plan recommended that EPA obtain and evaluate Science Advisory Board Report
recommendations for improving performance measures to better demonstrate Pollution
Prevention results, work to reduce barriers confronted by industry and others in attempting to
implement source reduction, fully implement Grant Track and the P2 State Reporting System,
and develop additional efficiency measures in time for inclusion in the FY 2009 budget. The
Pollution Prevention Program has already developed one efficiency measure focusing on the
Design for the Environment Program's formulators effort.
Performance Targets:
Activities for this appropriation support PART measures listed for Pollution Prevention Program
funded under EPA's Environmental Program Management account.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; TSCA.
STAG-63
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$98,590.8
$98,590.8
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$99,099.0
$99,099.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$99,100.0
$99,100.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1.0
$1.0
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;
• 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 primary enforcement authority. 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 for "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.
(See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/pwss.html for more information.)
STAG-64
-------
FY 2008 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 2008, the
Agency will emphasize that states should use their PWSS funds to ensure that:
1) Drinking water systems of all sizes achieve or remain in compliance;
2) Drinking water systems of all sizes are meeting new health-based standards and are prepared
for new regulatory requirements (e.g., Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule or "LT2", Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule or "Stage 2");
and
3) Data quality and other data issues have been addressed and resolved.
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. The Public Water System Supervision Grant program was included in
the 2004 PART review and received an overall rating of "adequate."
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent population
served by CWS that
receive drinking water
that meets all
applicable health-based
DW standards through
approaches including
effective treatment and
source water
protection.
FY 2006
Actual
89
FY 2006
Target
93
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
90
Units
Percent
Population
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent community
water systems will
provide drinking water
that meets all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards.
FY 2006
Actual
89.4
FY 2006
Target
93
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
89.5
Units
Perrent
Systems
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1.0) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
STAG-65
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$8,577.4
$8,577.4
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$8,073.5
$8,073.5
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$8,074.0
$8,074.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.5
$0.5
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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008 EPA will:
• Continue national partnerships and national outreach;
• Leverage the expertise of states, tribes, and localities with active and comprehensive
radon programs through state partnerships to carry the radon message; and,
• Continue to work with partners to incorporate radon risk reduction as a normal part of
doing business.
In FY 2008, states receiving SIRG funds will continue to focus their efforts on priority activities
such as educating consumers, homeowners, the real estate and homebuilder communities and
local governments to achieve risk reduction. SIRG funds should achieve the following results:
homes mitigated, homes built with radon resistant new construction, and schools mitigated or
built with radon resistant new construction. EPA is working with the states to align performance
measures.
The Indoor Air program, assessed by OMB through the PART process, received a rating of
"moderately effective." The Indoor Air program is not regulatory; instead, EPA works toward
its goal by conducting research and promoting appropriate risk reduction actions through
voluntary education and outreach programs. The Agency will continue to focus on making
efficiency improvements and plans to improve transparency by making all aspects of the State
Indoor Radon Grant (SIRG) program performance/results data available to the public via our
website or other easily accessible means.
STAG-66
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Total Cost (public and
private) per future
premature lung cancer
death prevented
through lowered radon
exposure.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
450,000
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of additional
homes (new and
existing) with radon
reducing features
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2008
FY 2006
Target
180,000
FY 2007
Target
190,000
FY 2008
Target
225,000
Units
Homes
These program goals are a result of the total funding the program area receives through EPM,
S&T, and SIRG funding. In FY 2008, EPA expects 225,000 additional homes to have radon
reducing features bringing the cumulative number of U.S. homes with radon reducing features to
over 2 million. EPA estimates that this cumulative number will result in approximately 800
future premature cancer deaths prevented (each year these radon reducing features are in place).
EPA will track progress against the efficiency measure included in the table above triennially
with the next planned report date in FY 2009.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$0.5) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA, Section 6, Titles II, and Title III (15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2641-2671), and Section 10.
STAG-67
-------
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$1,938.9
$1,938.9
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$2,227.5
$2,227.5
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,228.0
$2,228.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.5
$0.5
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 build environmental partnerships with states and Tribes to strengthen their
ability to address environmental and public health threats, including contaminated drinking
water, pollution caused by wet weather events, pesticides in food, toxic substances, and air
pollution. These capacity building grants also support state agencies that are responsible for
implementing authorized, delegated, or approved environmental programs.1
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to support states 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 2008 annual funding priorities for the multi-media grants program may include: 1) improving
compliance data quality, 2) modernizing data systems, 3) improving public access to
enforcement and compliance data, 4) improving outcome measurement, and 5) providing
compliance training to Tribes to enhance their compliance monitoring capacity. 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 that may be identified by states, Tribes, or state and Tribal
associations.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/stag/index.html
STAG-68
-------
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Improve Compliance objective. Currently, there are
no performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$0.5) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-US/
MX- BR; NEPA; MPRSA.
STAG-69
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$225,269. 8
$225,269.8
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$185,179.5
$185,179.5
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$185,180.0
$185,180.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.5
$0.5
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program includes funding for multi-state, state, and local air pollution control agencies.
Section 103 of the Clean Air Act provides EPA with the authority to award grants to a variety of
agencies, institutions, and organizations, including the air pollution control agencies funded from
the STAG appropriation, to conduct and promote certain types of research, investigations,
experiments, demonstrations, surveys, studies, and training related to air pollution. 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 continuing programs for the prevention and
control of air pollution, and for the implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) set to protect public health and the environment. Section 105 grants are also used by
states to help fund monitoring networks. Section 106 of the Clean Air Act provides EPA with
the authority to fund interstate air pollution transport commissions to develop or carry out plans
for designated air quality control regions.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
This program funds over 100 state and local air pollution control agencies, five RPOs, and one
interstate air pollution transport commission to implement requirements of the Clean Air Act. In
FY 2008, EPA will continue to work with these agencies to develop or implement state
implementation plans (SIPs) for the 8-hour ozone standard, the fine particle (PM-2.5) standard,
and regional haze. States must submit the SIPs for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA in FY
2007, and will continue with SIP implementation in FY 2008. States with areas classified as
moderate and above for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS will implement SIP measures for reasonable
further progress (RFP) and reasonably available control technology (RACT). States must
submit regional haze SIPs to EPA in December 2007, and PM2.5 SIPs in April 2008. States will
develop their regional haze SIPs using strategies and information provided by RPOs.
In 1999, EPA, at the direction of the Congress, established RPOs, to provide technical support to
states in developing regional haze SIPs. Regional haze results primarily from the presence of
common pollutants, such as PM2.5, sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). To assess various control scenarios that would reduce regional
haze, the RPOs analyzed pollutant data and conducted air quality modeling that incorporated
STAG-70
-------
control alternatives for PM2.5, SO2, NOx and VOCs. NOx and VOCs also are precursors for the
formation of ozone. The analyses and data systems developed by the RPOs potentially can be
used to support PM and ozone control strategy development.
In October 2006, EPA issued final regulations that eliminated or reduced a number of specific
minimum requirements for air quality monitoring, especially monitoring for four NAAQS
pollutants: carbon monoxide, SO2, nitrogen dioxide, and lead, for which violations of the
standards are now extremely uncommon. These regulatory changes will allow the states, with
EPA oversight, to streamline their monitoring networks for these four pollutants and reduce
costs. Also, EPA expects less, but still significant, streamlining of PM10 monitoring networks,
even though the minimum requirements were not changed. The number of PM10 monitors
currently in place exceeds minimum requirements, and many monitors are located in areas with
low PM10 concentrations. EPA believes that ozone and PM2.5 networks should remain about
their current size, with some shifting of sites for better data value.
The 2006 final rule established a new requirement for a small network of about 55 "NCore"
multi-pollutant monitoring sites, which must be operational by 2011. Among other
measurements, these sites are required to monitor for PM10-2.5 mass concentrations and
speciation profiles, types of monitoring not previously required anywhere. EPA and states
already have been working together on a voluntary basis to establish this network. In 2008, more
states will start selecting the sites for this newly required form of monitoring, acquire new
equipment, and become proficient in its operation. Also, the PM2.5 NAAQS for 24-hour
concentrations was made more stringent by the final rule. In connection with NAAQS revision,
about 50 existing PM2.5 monitoring sites must begin to sample for PM2.5 every day instead of
every third day, to provide greater accuracy in eventual nonattainment designations. Although
the final rule did not revise the required numbers of PM2.5 monitors or how they must be sited,
in 2008 states may voluntarily shift monitoring equipment to new locations to investigate
possible problem areas with respect to the revised NAAQS. Finally, as improved technologies
for monitoring PM on a continuous basis are commercialized and approved as official methods,
states are expected to transition to wider use of continuous methods in preference to older filter-
based methods that have higher operating costs.
This program also supports state and local characterization of air toxics problems, and
implementation of measures to reduce health risks. These measures include support for state
efforts in implementing Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standards for major
and area sources. Funding for the characterization work includes collection and analysis of
emissions data, and a monitoring of ambient air toxics. In FY 2008, funds for air toxic ambient
monitoring will support the National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS), consisting of 24 air
toxics monitoring sites operated and maintained by state and local air pollution control agencies
across the country, and the associated quality assurance, data analysis, and methods support.
These air toxics monitoring funds also support community scale monitoring projects aimed at
helping state, local, and tribal air pollution agencies assess the degree to which their community
is impacted by hazardous air pollutants.
STAG-71
-------
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 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
17
FY 2007
Target
21
FY 2008
Target
26
Units
Percentage
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$0.5) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority
C.A.A., Sections 103, 105, and 106.
STAG-72
-------
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$14,301.8
$14,301.8
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$6,930.0
$6,930.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($6,930.0)
($6,930.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program encourages successful community-based approaches
and management techniques to protect and restore the nation's waters.
The Targeted Watersheds Grant Program enhances community watershed groups' efforts
through two different types of competitive grants. Implementation grants provide monetary
assistance directly to watershed organizations to implement restoration/protection activities
within their watershed. Resources are used to stabilize stream banks, demonstrate nutrient
management schemes, establish pollutant credits and trading projects, and work with local
governments and private citizens to promote sustainable practices and strategies. 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.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
This program will be eliminated in order to focus on higher priority water quality programs and
achieve administrative efficiencies.
Performance Targets:
This program has not been reviewed under the PART process.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$6,930.0) This program will be eliminated in order to focus on higher priority water
quality programs and achieve administrative efficiencies.
Statutory Authority:
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006.
Public Law 109-54.
STAG-73
-------
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$6,347.5
$6,347.5
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$5,098.5
$5,098.5
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,099.0
$5,099.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.5
$0.5
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Toxic Substances Compliance grants 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 compliance with standards for 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 certification to ensure
protection during the abatement process and minimize the public's exposure to these harmful
toxic substances.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, 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.
The EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) PART program received an "adequate"
rating in 2004 with the development of a measure implementation plan. In FY 2006, at OMB's
direction, EPA conducted a review of enforcement and compliance measures used by states,
other Federal agencies, and other countries, as well as consulting with academics and other
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is beginning to transition the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture, and as new measures are developed they will replace existing measures in the
Agency's Strategic Plan.
STAG-74
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Improve Compliance objective. Currently, there are
no external performance measures specific for this program project. One of the primary
performance results for the enforcement and compliance assurance program, pounds of
pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution as a result of enforcement actions
including toxic substances1. Grant funding provided to states and tribes through this categorical
grant for toxic substances helps states and tribes reduce lead, asbestos, and PCB pollution
through state and tribal compliance monitoring and enforcement. The Agency is 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.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$0.5) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA.
1 With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reduction will move from an enforcement category to
a regulatory category; therefore, the enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall
pollution reduction is certain to increase.
STAG-75
-------
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Healthier Indoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$11,723.9
$11,723.9
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,939.5
$10,939.5
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,940.0
$10,940.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.5
$0.5
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program includes funding for Tribal air pollution control agencies and/or Tribes. Through
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 105 Grants, Tribes may develop and implement programs for the
prevention and control of air pollution or implementation of national primary and secondary
ambient air standards. Through CAA Section 103 grants, Tribal air pollution control agencies or
tribes, colleges, universities, or multi-tribe jurisdictional air pollution control agencies and/or
non-profit organizations may conduct and promote research, investigations, experiments,
demonstrations, surveys, studies and training related to air pollution. Allowable activities are
described in "Guidance for Funding Air and Radiation Activities Using the STAG
Appropriation," issued by the Office of Air and Radiation on November 12, 1999.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Highlights:
With EPA funding, Tribes will assess environmental and public health conditions on Tribal lands
and, where appropriate, site and operate air quality monitors. Tribes will continue to develop
and implement air pollution control programs for their reservations, acting "as states" to prevent
and address air quality concerns. EPA will continue to fund organizations for the purpose of
providing technical support, tools and training for Tribes to build capacity to develop and
implement programs as appropriate.
The Air Quality Grants and Permitting Program, PARTed in 2005, received a rating of
"ineffective."
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 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2007
FY 2006
Target
17
FY 2007
Target
21
FY 2008
Target
26
Units
Percentage
STAG-76
-------
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$0.5) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
Clean Air Act, Section 103 and 105.
STAG-77
-------
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$60,086.9
$60,086.9
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$56,925.0
$56,925.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$56,925.0
$56,925.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
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 GAP is to support development of core Tribal
environmental protection programs. (See http://www.epa.gov/indian/laws3 .htm for more
information.)
GAP provides general assistance grants to build capacity to administer environmental regulatory
programs that may be authorized 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 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, GAP grants will build Tribal environmental capacity to assess environmental
conditions, utilize available Federal information, and build an environmental program tailored to
Tribes' needs. The grants will develop environmental education and outreach programs, develop
and implement integrated solid waste management plans, and alert EPA to serious conditions
that pose immediate public health and ecological threats. Through GAP program guidance, EPA
emphasizes outcome based results.
STAG-78
-------
The Tribal GAP program underwent a PART assessment in 2003 and received an overall rating
of "adequate" from OMB. In FY 2005, EPA improved program accountability by implementing
a new database system, the Goal 5 Objective 3 Reporting System, to standardize, centralize, and
integrate regional data and assign accountability for data quality. Currently, EPA is working to
develop and deploy the GAP Tracking System for improved data management and real-time
access to grant information. EPA is revising the GAP program measures to strengthen their
relevance and accuracy in preparation for an anticipated PART review in FY 2007. In FY 2008,
EPA will continue to improve the program by conducting 4 reviews of Regional Program
Operations, finalizing a performance evaluation of the GAP, and developing a standardized
reporting format for program performance and accomplishments.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of tribes with
EPA-approved
multimedia workplans.
FY 2006
Actual
33
FY 2006
Target
18
FY 2007
Target
42
FY 2008
Target
45
Units
% Tribes
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of tribes with
delegated and non-
delegated programs
(cumulative).
FY 2006
Actual
42
FY 2006
Target
5
FY 2007
Target
49
FY 2008
Target
50
Units
% Tribes
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Tribes with
EPA-re viewed
monitoring and
assessment occurring.
FY 2006
Actual
30.8
FY 2006
Target
20
FY 2007
Target
31
FY 2008
Target
31
Units
% Tribes
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Number of
environmental
programs implemented
in Indian Country per
million dollars.
FY 2006
Actual
12.3
FY 2006
Target
13.7
FY 2007
Target
12.5
FY 2008
Target
12.5
Units
Programs
The efficiency measure for the GAP program reads: "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 2008, EPA will operate at an efficiency of approximately 12.5 programs per
million dollars. This efficiency level is consistent with prior fiscal years.
STAG-79
-------
• In FY 2008, 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 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
Indian General Assistance Program Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4368b (1992), as amended.
STAG-80
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$10,591.5
$10,591.5
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$10,890.0
$10,890.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,891.0
$10,891.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$1.0
$1.0
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 disposal 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. EPA directly implements programs in ten states
and shares responsibility in seven states.
(See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic.html for more information.)
FY 2008 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. The UIC program continues to manage or close the approximately
700,000 shallow injection wells (Class V) to protect our ground water resources.
STAG-81
-------
In 2008, states and EPA (where EPA has primacy) will continue to carry out regulatory functions
for all well types. In addition, states and EPA will process UIC permit applications for
experimental carbon sequestration projects and gather information from these pilots to facilitate
the permitting of large scale commercial carbon sequestration in the future. Similarly, states and
EPA will process UIC permits for other nontraditional injection streams such as drinking water
treatment residuals, desalination brines, and treated waters injected for storage and recovered at a
later time.
The Underground Injection Control Grant program underwent a PART review in 2004. The
program received a rating of "adequate" from OMB. The program is on track to develop by the
end of 2007 an annual performance measure and efficiency measure to demonstrate the
protection of source water quality.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent population
served by CWS that
receive drinking water
that meets all
applicable health-based
DW standards through
approaches including
effective treatment and
source water
protection.
FY 2006
Actual
89
FY 2006
Target
93
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
90
Units
Percent
Population
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
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)
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
98
Units
Percent of
Wells
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
identified Class V
motor vehicle waste
disposal wells closed
or permitted
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
90
Units
Percent of
Wells
STAG-82
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
prohibited Class IV
and high-priority,
identified, potentially
endangering Class V
wells closed or
permitted in ground-
water based source
water areas (under
development)
FY 2006
Actual
FY 2006
Target
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
96
Units
Percent of
Wells
EPA also 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.
These measures are demonstrating how the UIC program is helping to reduce risk to
underground sources of drinking water and protect public health.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1.0) Change due to rounding in FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
STAG-83
-------
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 2006
Actuals
$14,328.1
$14,328.1
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
537,566.7
$37,566.7
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$22,274.0
$22,274.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
($15,292. 7)
($15,292.7)
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 2008, EPA will make grants or cooperative agreements to states
for new activities authorized by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 \ 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 where EPA carries 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, refer to
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, refer to
http://www.epa.gov/OUST /fedlaws /cfr.htm.
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 (P.L.) 105-276, through Performance Partnership Agreements and
through the UST categorical grants for release detection and release prevention activities to
encourage owners and operators to properly operate and maintain their USTs. In FY 2008, EPA
will make grants or cooperative agreements for new activities authorized by the EPAct, which
were enacted as Title XV, Subtitle B of the EPAct of 2005, that are not otherwise provided for in
Section 2007 of the SWDA. Additionally, to ensure adequate funds are available for inspections
required under the EPAct of 2005, 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 EPAct.
1 Refer to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-
bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname= 109 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).
STAG-84
-------
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to assist states and Tribes in implementing the UST program and
will provide assistance and alternative mechanisms to states to help them meet their new
responsibilities authorized under the EPAct2. States will use the UST categorical grant funding
to implement their leak prevention and detection programs. This will include implementing the
EPAct provisions, such as conducting more frequent inspections, prohibiting delivery to
noncompliant tanks, and requiring either secondary containment for new tank systems or
financial responsibility for manufacturers and installers.
In FY 2008, EPA is seeking a legislative amendment to provide states with an alternative
mechanism to meet the three-year UST inspection requirement mandated in the EPAct. Under
the proposal, states would have the option to inspect a statistically valid number of random
facilities, and compel all owners or operators to do a self-evaluation and certification of each
UST. Under the existing law, states can inspect every facility every three years using government
inspectors or third-party inspectors. Therefore, if the proposed alternative is passed, states would
have three ways to meet the inspection mandate.
EPA has the primary responsibility for implementation of the UST Program in Indian country. In
FY 2008, 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 will also implement the UST Tribal
strategy3 developed in FY 2006 in Indian country. As specified in the EPAct, EPA is required
by August 8, 2007, and every three years thereafter, to conduct on-site inspections in Indian
country of all tanks not inspected since 1998.
The UST (prevention) program received an overall rating of "moderately effective" in 2006. As
a component of the program's improvement plan, EPA will be working with its state partners to
develop a measure of efficiency and consider various options to measure the activities associated
with the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
The program has set a goal o fmcreasing significant operational compliance (SOC) by one
percent (1%) per yer from the 2004 baseline of 64 percent. As states continue to inspect
previously uninspected facilitie, SOC rates may decline as states find more facilities that are not
in compliance leaving EPA with challenging and ambitious targets for FYs 2007 and 2008. . As
a result, the significant operational compliance rates may be lower than in previous years,
making it more difficult to meet the targets for FYs 2007 and 2008.
Grant Guidelines To States For Implementing The Delivery Prohibition Provision Of The EPAct Of '2005, August
2006, EPA-510-R-06-003, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/Delivery%20Prohibition 080706.pdf
3 Refer to Strategy For An EPA/Tribal Partnership To Implement Section 1529 Of The EPAct Of 2005, August
2006, EPA-510-F-06-005,, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact_05.htm#Final
STAG-85
-------
The program also measures confirmed releases reported each year, with a goal of fewer than
10,000 releases each year. Between FY 1999 and FY 2006, confirmed UST releases averaged
10,534.
Performance goals and measures for the UST Categorical Grant program are currently a
component of the overall LUST/UST program's measures. As a result, the LUST/UST EPM
program also contributes to the achievement of these performance measures.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
No more than 10,000
confirmed releases per
year.
FY 2006
Actual
8,361
FY 2006
Target
<10,000
FY 2007
Target
<10,000
FY 2008
Target
<10,000
Units
UST releases
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Increase the rate of
significant operational
compliance by 1% over
the previous year's rate
(target).
FY 2006
Actual
62
FY 2006
Target
66
FY 2007
Target
67
FY 2008
Target
68
Units
percent
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$15,293.0) This decrease reflects EPA's proposed legislative changes to provide states
with an alternative mechanism to meet the Energy Policy three-year UST inspection
requirement. With the legislative changes, the reduced level of funding is sufficient to
enable the states to meet the three-year UST inspection requirement.
• (+$0.3) Change due to rounding in the FY 2008 President's Budget.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA of 1976, as amended by the Superfund Reauthorization Amendments of 1986 (Subtitle
I), Section 2007(f), 42 U.S.C. 6916(f)(2); EPAct of 2005, Title XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels,
Subtitle B - Underground Storage Tank Compliance, Sections 1521 - 1533, P.L. 109-58, 42
U.S.C. 15801; Tribal Grants: P.L. 105-276.
STAG-86
-------
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$13,360.5
$13,360.5
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Wetland Program Development Grants (WPDG) enable EPA to provide technical and
financial support to assist states, Tribes, and local governments toward 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 as well as to implement
programs where environmental results can be demonstrated. Grants are awarded on a
competitive basis under the authority of Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act (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. (See
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/initiative/tffmancial for more information.)
FY 2008 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
and other aquatic resources. Resources in FY 2008 will assist states and Tribes to develop,
enhance, implement, and administer wetland programs. This program will help states and Tribes
build capacity in the areas of measuring and achieving a net gain of wetlands, and protection of
vulnerable wetlands.
The WPDG Program encourages states, Tribes, territories, and local governments to pursue
projects that will develop one or more of the six core elements (monitoring, regulation, water
quality standards, mitigation compliance, and partnership building) that EPA has identified as
comprising a comprehensive wetland program. Further explanation of these core areas can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/initiative/fy02elements.html. In addition, EPA will
be completing and analyzing the results of the state/Tribal Environmental Outcome Wetland
Demonstration Pilot (WDP). The WDP is a three-year pilot, started in 2005, 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.
STAG-87
-------
The 2006 National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends Report, released by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), reports the quantity and type of wetlands in the conterminous United
States. The report shows that overall gains in wetland acres exceeded overall losses from 1998
through 2004 at a rate of 32,000 acres per year. This gain is primarily attributable to an increase
in unvegetated freshwater ponds, which may have varying functional value. Additional wetland
data provided in a report titled Preserving America's Wetlands, Implementing the President's
Goal (Council on Environmental Quality, April 2006), indicates that since April 2004, 1,797,000
acres have been restored, created, protected or improved. For more information consult
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Working with partners,
achieve a net increase
in wetlands.
FY 2006
Actual
Data
Available
2011
FY 2006
Target
200,000
FY 2007
Target
100,000
FY 2008
Target
100,000
Units
Acres/year
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 2006
Actual
Data
Available
201 1
FY 2006
Target
No Net
Loss
FY 2007
Target
No Net
Loss
FY 2008
Target
No Net
Loss
Units
Acres
This program has not been reviewed under the PART process.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
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
Bi-national Toxics Strategy; U.S.-Canada Agreements.
STAG-88
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Program Performance and Assessment
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) OMB Report 1
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Supplemental Information 19
Annual Performance Goals and Measures - Environmental Programs 28
GOAL 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change 27
GOAL 2: Clean and Safe Water 40
GOAL 3: Land Preservation and Restoration 48
GOAL 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 56
GOAL 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 79
Annual Performance Goals and Measures - Enabling Support Programs 86
NPM: Office of Administration and Resources Management 86
NPM: Office of Environmental Information 88
NPM: Office of the Inspector General 90
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
This table lists PART Follow-Up Actions, also known as Improvement Plans, that EPA
programs are implementing in response to PART assessments.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
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
Alaska Native Village Water
Infrastructure
Alaska Native Village Water
Infrastructure
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.
Correcting incomplete data fields and
reporting deficiencies in database to
support analysis for cost effectiveness
and efficiency by January 30, 2007.
Finalizing web based project reporting
system to include all projects funded
by EPA dollars by April 30, 2007.
EPA will develop regulations for the
management and oversight of the
program, including all grant funds to
the State of Alaska and any subsidiary
recipients of EPA funds via the State
of Alaska. By March 1, 2007, EPA
shall provide a draft regulation to
OMB for review and comment.
The program will issue a contract for
an independent review of the Alaska
Native Tribal Health Consortium
financial processes and records. The
independent review will begin in
January 2007.
Complete performance measures that
are under development including a
new cross-agency measure that tracks
brownfields redevelopment.
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
No action taken
Action taken, but not
completed
Action taken, but not
completed
PPA-1
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
PART Program Title
Follow-Up Action
Action Taken*
2005
Brownfields Revitalization
Conduct regional program reviews to
share and implement best practices
among regional offices that will
improve the program's overall
performance and efficiency.
Action taken, but not
completed
2005
Brownfields Revitalization
Improve grantee use of electronic
reporting systems to reduce data lags
in performance information.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Chesapeake Bay Program
Investigating potential methods to
more transparently characterize the
uncertainty of the watershed and water
quality models, ideally leading to
implementation of a method, if
feasible.
Action taken, but not
completed
Developing a comprehensive
implementation strategy that is
coordinated between program partners
and accurately accounts for available
2006
Chesapeake Bay Program
resources.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Chesapeake Bay Program
Promoting and tracking
implementation of the most cost
effective restoration activities to
maximize water quality
improvements.
Action taken, but not
completed
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 Protection
Program
Developing a long-term outcome
performance measure to assess the
public health impacts of
improvements in drinking water
compliance.
Revising the current drinking water
small system affordability
methodology to address negative
distributional impacts.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Drinking Water Protection
Program
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Drinking Water Protection
Program
Implementing data quality review
recommendations to improve the
overall quality of the data in EPA's
drinking water compliance reporting
system.
Action taken, but not
completed
PPA-2
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
2006
2006
2006
2006
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
PART Program Title
Drinking Water Protection
Program
Drinking Water Research
Drinking Water Research
Drinking Water Research
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund
Endocrine Disrupters
Endocrine Disrupters
Endocrine Disrupters
Endocrine Disrupters
Follow-Up Action
The program is developing an
efficiency measure that is more useful
and meaningful for tracking annual
programmatic efficiency.
Develop a performance measure
which tracks the efficiency with which
the program delivers its services to its
primary client, the EPA Office of
Water.
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.
Improve oversight of non-grant
partners and require non-grant
partners to work towards the annual
and long term goals of the program.
Develop a new long-term outcome
performance measure to assess the
impact of drinking water compliance
improvements on public health.
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.
Articulate clearly R&D priorities to
ensure compelling, merit-based
justifications for funding allocations.
By the end of CY 2006, develop
baseline data for an efficiency
measure that compares dollars/labor
hours in validating chemical assays.
Maintain funding at approximately the
FY 2005 President's Budget level.
By the end of CY 2007, collect data
for first year of new contracts and
compare to baseline efficiency
measures.
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
Completed
Completed
Completed
Action taken, but not
completed
PPA-3
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
PART Program Title
Follow-Up Action
Action Taken*
2004
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
2004
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
2005
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
2005
EPA Climate Change Programs
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.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
EPA Ecological Research
Develop a program-specific customer
survey to improve the program's
utility to the Agency.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
EPA Ecological Research
Link budget resources to annual and
long-term performance targets by
requesting and reporting Human
Health Research and Ecosystem
Research funding separately.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
EPA Ecological Research
Refine the questions used in
independent scientific reviews to
improve EPA's understanding of
program utility and performance in
relationship to environmental
outcomes.
Action taken, but not
completed
2003
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws (Civil)
Continue to expand and improve use
of statistically valid non-compliance
rates.
Action taken, but not
completed
PPA-4
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
2003
2004
2004
2005
2005
2006
2004
2004
2004
2006
2003
2003
2005
PART Program Title
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws (Civil)
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws (Civil)
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws (Civil)
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws (Civil)
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
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)
Target resources based on workload
analysis and take into account
recommendations by the intra-agency
Superfund Review completed in April
2004.
EPA will consider contracting for an
independent evaluation of the program
that can serve as the basis for further
improvements.
Calculate and evaluate recidivism
rates.
Begin to transition from a tool-
oriented to a problem-oriented GPPxA
Architecture; and incorporate in the
next EPA Strategic Plan.
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.
Develop a long-term outcome
efficiency measure.
Maintain funding at the 2004
President's Budget level.
Develop a cost efficiency measure for
management of the Toxic Substances
Control Act 8(e) Hazard Notification
process.
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
Action taken, but not
completed
Action taken, but not
completed
Action taken, but not
completed
Completed
Action taken, but not
completed
PPA-5
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
PART Program Title
EPA Existing Chemicals
Program
EPA Existing Chemicals
Program
EPA Existing Chemicals
Program
EPA Existing Chemicals
Program
EPA Human Health Research
EPA Human Health Research
EPA Human Health Research
EPA Indoor Air Quality
EPA Indoor Air Quality
EPA Indoor Air Quality
Follow-Up Action
Develop a long-term outcome measure
for the PFOA Stewardship Initiative
for inclusion in the FY 2009 OMB
Submission.
Assess initial year actual data for the
AEGL efficiency measure to identify
issues requiring resolution prior to
second year implementation of the
measure in the FY 2008 Annual Plan.
Update baseline data for TSCA 8(e)
efficiency measure through FY 2007.
Develop an efficiency measure for
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
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.
Implement follow up
recommendations resulting from
external expert review by the Human
Health Subcommittee of the Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC).
Follow up actions are those actions
committed to in the Human Health
Research program's formal response to
the BOSC in September 2005.
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.
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
Action taken, but not
completed
Action taken, but not
completed
PPA-6
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
PART Program Title
Follow-Up Action
Action Taken*
2006
EPA Lead-Based Paint Risk
Reduction Program
Develop and implement a method of
measuring the impacts of the
program's outreach and education
efforts.
Action taken, but not
completed
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.
Completed
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.
Completed
2006
EPA Lead-Based Paint Risk
Reduction Program
Refine/Improve measures used in
State Grant Reporting Template to
improve accountability of program
partners for achievement of program
goals.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
EPA Lead-Based Paint Risk
Reduction Program
Further improve results reporting from
program partners.
Action taken, but not
completed
2003
EPA New Chemicals Program
Establish targets and timeframes for
its measures, including efficiency
measures.
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
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).
Completed
2006
EPA New Chemicals Program
Develop a long-term/annual output
measure addressing the program's
recognition of PMN submissions for
advancing pollution prevention, or a
suitable alternative measure, for
inclusion in the FY 2009 OMB
Submission.
Action taken, but not
completed
PPA-7
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
2003
2003
2006
PART Program Title
EPA New Chemicals Program
EPA Oil Spill Control
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
EPA Tribal General Assistance
Program
Follow-Up Action
Develop baselines and targets for the
efficiency measure targeting
improvements in the initial phases of
EPA's management of Pre-
Manufacture Notices (PMNs).
Develop a forum for sharing and
implementing best practices among
regional offices that will improve the
program's overall performance and
efficiency.
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.
Improving data quality both in terms
of scope and reliability to assist in
setting meaningful targets for program
improvement.
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
Completed
Completed
Completed
Action taken, but not
completed
Completed
Action taken, but not
completed
PPA-8
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
2006
2005
2005
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
PART Program Title
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
Global Change Research
Global Change Research
Global Change Research
Global Change Research
Human Health Risk Assessment
Program
Human Health Risk Assessment
Program
Human Health Risk Assessment
Program
Follow-Up Action
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.
Finalize ambitious long-term outcome
measures that assess the utility of the
program's research products and
services with respect to the outcome
goals of its clients.
More clearly define the program's
framework and mission to help focus
assessment efforts and provide
structure for setting priorities.
Develop an efficiency measure that
captures the cost effectiveness of
research activities.
Develop and implement a protocol for
more frequent review and use of
financial and performance tracking
data to improve budget-performance
integration.
Expand efficiency measure to include
all major work products.
Implement new IRIS review process.
Implement regular, independent
evaluations that assess the program's
effectiveness specifically related to its
influence on key risk management
decisions made by the Agency's
environmental media offices.
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
No action taken
Action taken, but not
completed
Action taken, but not
completed
PPA-9
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
PART Program Title
Follow-Up Action
Action Taken*
2006
Human Health Risk Assessment
Program
Investigate alternative approaches for
measuring progress related to
providing timely, high quality
scientific assessments.
No action taken
2006
Land Protection and Restoration
Research
Finalize ambitious, long-term outcome
performance measures that assess the
utility of the program's research
products and services with respect to
the outcome goals of its clients.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Land Protection and Restoration
Research
Develop and implement a protocol for
more frequent review and use of
financial and performance tracking
data to improve budget-performance
integration.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Land Protection and Restoration
Research
Develop a new efficiency measure
that captures the cost effectiveness of
research activities.
Action taken, but not
completed
2003
Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Cleanup Program
In response to initial findings that the
program needed better long-term
outcome goals with adequate baselines
and targets, the program will conduct
a baseline characterization study.
Completed
2005
Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Cleanup Program
Programs initiative on performance
indicators. The program has proposed
new measures for this reassessment.
Completed
2005
Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Cleanup Program
Seek out regular independent
evaluations and a systematic process
to review the program's strategic
planning.
Action taken, but not
completed
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
PPA-10
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
PART Program Title
Follow-Up Action
Action Taken*
2006
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Regional Haze
Programs
Develop at least one efficiency
measure that adequately reflects
program efficiency.
Completed
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.
Action taken, but not
completed
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.
Action taken, but not
completed
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.
Action taken, but not
completed
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).
Action taken, but not
completed
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.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards Research
The program must develop at least one
efficiency measure that adequately
reflects the efficiency of the program.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards Research
Convene annual program reviews in
which extramural expert discipline
scientists and clients will assess the
state of ORD science, ensure progress
toward outcome goals, and determine
the need for strategic mid-course
adjustments to maximize program
efficiency and assist with outyear
planning.
Action taken, but not
completed
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.
Action taken, but not
completed
PPA-11
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
2005
2006
2006
2006
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2006
PART Program Title
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Grants
Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary
Protection
Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary
Protection
Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary
Protection
Pesticide Field Programs
Pesticide Field Programs
Pesticide Field Programs
Pesticide Field Programs
Pesticide Field Programs
Pesticide Field Programs
Follow-Up Action
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.
Develop an additional performance
measure for non-estuary program
activities.
Develop an annual performance
measure for the Ocean Dumping
Program.
Developing more ambitious targets for
the National Estuary Program's annual
and long term measures on habitat
acres protected and restored.
Develop and implement a method of
compiling and disseminating Field
Programs grantee performance data in
a manner easily accessible to the
public. EPA worked with states to
develop a simplified, electronic, EOY
reporting system for worker safety
activities. Will expand to other field
programs by EOY 2007.
Develop and implement annual goals
and efficiency measures and continue
development of baselines and targets
for long-term outcome measures for
all Field Programs.
Make the Field Programs budgeting
more transparent and more clearly link
to adequate and relevant program-
specific measures.
Include a $1 million reduction in
funding for the Field Programs, WQ
program in the FY2006 President's
Budget. EPA must ensure that WQ
program activities affected by this
reduction are adequately addressed in
the Office of Water's Surface Water
Protection program.
Implement new strategic plan
architecture into FY 08 management
activities and day-to-day operations.
Establish executive leads to provide
senior leadership for each of the 3
mission areas in the new Strategic
Plan.
Action Taken**
Action taken, but not
completed
Action taken, but not
completed
Action taken, but not
completed
Action taken, but not
completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Action taken, but not
completed
Action taken, but not
completed
PPA-12
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
2006
2003
2003
2003
2006
2006
2006
2004
2004
PART Program Title
Pesticide Field Programs
Pesticide Registration
Pesticide Registration
Pesticide Registration
Pesticide Registration
Pesticide Registration
Pesticide Registration
Pesticide Reregistration
Pesticide Reregistration
Follow-Up Action
Brief staff on new Strategic Plan in
order to incorporate stronger
alignment between Strategic Plan
individual Performance Agreement
and Recognition System (PARS)
agreements.
The Administration recommends
maintaining funding at the 2004
President's Budget level adjusted for
the annual pay increase.
The program will also work on long-
term outcome efficiency measures.
The program will develop long-term
risk-based outcome performance
measures that will supplement the
existing long-term measures.
Implement new strategic plan
architecture into FY 08 management
activities and day-to-day operations.
Establish executive leads to provide
senior leadership for each of the 3
mission areas in the new Strategic
Plan.
Brief staff on new Strategic Plan in
order to incorporate stronger
alignment between Strategic Plan
individual Performance Agreement
and Recognition System (PARS)
agreements.
Per the Agency targets develop and
finalize appropriate regional
performance targets.
To address the issue of not meeting
annual targets and concerns about
meeting statutorily -required deadlines,
the program did use additional
resources for reviewing antimicrobial
pesticides and inert ingredients as
proposed in the FY 2004 President's
Budget.
Action Taken**
Action taken, but not
completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Action taken, but not
completed
Action taken, but not
completed
Action taken, but not
completed
Completed
Completed
PPA-13
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
PART Program Title
Follow-Up Action
Action Taken*
2004
Pesticide Reregistration
The original PART assessment found
that the program was not measuring its
level of efficiency. As a result, the
program has proposed new output
efficiency measures that will promote
better management and a more direct
focus on efficiently achieving
outcomes.
(Management/Performance)
Completed
2006
Pesticide Reregistration
Implement new strategic plan
architecture into FY 08 management
activities and day-to-day operations.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Pesticide Reregistration
Establish executive leads to provide
senior leadership for each of the 3
mission areas in the new Strategic
Plan.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Pesticide Reregistration
Brief staff on new Strategic Plan in
order to incorporate stronger
alignment between Strategic Plan
individual Performance Agreement
and Recognition System (PARS)
agreements.
Action taken, but not
completed
2004
Pollution Prevention and New
Technologies Research
Establish performance measures,
including efficiency measures.
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
2004
Pollution Prevention and New
Technologies Research
Improve the program's strategic
planning. These improvements should
include a plan for independent
evaluation of the program, responses
to previous evaluations, and should
clearly explain why the program
should pursue projects instead of other
capable parties.
Completed
PPA-14
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
PART Program Title
Follow-Up Action
Action Taken*
2005
Pollution Prevention and New
Technologies Research
Develop and publish a revised multi-
year research plan with an improved
strategic focus and clear goals and
priorities. This plan must include
explicit statements of: specific issues
motivating the program; broad goals
and more specific tasks meant to
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
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
2006
Pollution Prevention Program
Evaluate Science Advisory Board
Report recommendations for
improving performance measures to
better demonstrate P2 results.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Pollution Prevention Program
Identifying and reducing barriers
associated with core EPA activities
that limit implementation of pollution
prevention practices by industry.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Pollution Prevention Program
Developing additional P2 Program
efficiency measures to expand the
portion of the program's resources that
are addressed.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Pollution Prevention Program
Fully implement Grant Track and P2
State Reporting System. Obtain
consistent 2007 results from Regions.
Action taken, but not
completed
2005
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
2005
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
PPA-15
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
PART Program Title
Follow-Up Action
Action Taken*
2004
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
2004
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Corrective Action
Program should establish appropriate
efficiency measures to adequately
track program efficiency over time.
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
Program will develop a long-term
performance measure and set
ambitious targets for reduced
incidence of non-melanoma skin
2006
Stratospheric Ozone Protection
cancers.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Stratospheric Ozone Protection
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.
Action taken, but not
completed
2005
Superfund Remedial Action
Implement the recommendations of
the Agency's 120-day study on
management of the Superfund
program.
Action taken, but not
completed
2005
Superfund Remedial Action
Modernize the program's data
repository (CERCLIS) to ensure
accurate and complete information on
program performance and financial
management.
Action taken, but not
completed
2005
Superfund Remedial Action
Validate the reporting method for
performance data and develop a new
Superfund cleanup efficiency
measure.
Action taken, but not
completed
PPA-16
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
2003
2003
2006
2006
2006
2006
2003
2003
2003
2006
2005
2005
PART Program Title
Superfund Removal
Superfund Removal
Superfund Removal
Surface Water Protection
Surface Water Protection
Surface Water Protection
Toxic Air Pollutants -
Regulations and Federal Support
Toxic Air Pollutants -
Regulations and Federal Support
Toxic Air Pollutants -
Regulations and Federal Support
Toxic Air Pollutants -
Regulations and Federal Support
U. S. -Mexico Border Water
Infrastructure
U. S. -Mexico Border Water
Infrastructure
Follow-Up Action
Investigate the feasibility of outcome
oriented measures that test the linkage
between program activities and
impacts on human health and the
environment.
Modernize the program's data
repository (CERCLIS) to ensure
accurate and complete information on
program performance and financial
management.
Develop a plan for regular,
comprehensive and independent
assessments of program performance.
Require that 106 State workplans and
performance data are formatted and
reported consistently and directly
support specific goals in EPA's
strategic plan.
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.
Working with States and other
partners, EPA will issue water quality
reports based on the statistically -valid
surveys in the lower 48 states by 201 1.
Establish better performance
measures, including an appropriate
efficiency measure.
Focus on maximizing programmatic
net benefits and minimizing the cost
per deleterious health effect avoided.
Increase funding for toxic air pollutant
programs by $7 million in State grants
for monitoring to help fill data gaps.
Use the newly developed efficiency
measure to demonstrate efficiency
improvements.
Develop baselines and targets for its
long-term and efficiency measures.
Follow-up on the results of the
business process review to help EPA
implement program changes that
could improve effectiveness.
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
Completed
No action taken
Completed
Completed
PPA-17
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART) OMB REPORT
Year
Work
Started
PART Program Title
Follow-Up Action
Action Taken*
2005
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
2005
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.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Water Pollution Control Grants
Require that State workplans and
performance data are formatted and
reported consistently and directly
support specific goals in EPA's
strategic plan.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Water Pollution Control Grants
Target additional program funding to
States implementing probabilistic
monitoring activities in support of the
national probabilistic monitoring
survey.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Water Quality Research
Finalize ambitious long-term outcome
performance measures, which assess
the utility of the program's research
products and services with respect to
the outcome goals of its clients.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Water Quality Research
Developing and implementing a
protocol for more frequent review and
use of financial and performance
tracking data to improve budget and
performance integration.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Water Quality Research
Develop a new outcome efficiency
measure that captures the cost
effectiveness of research activities.
Action taken, but not
completed
2006
Water Quality Research
Improve the collection of partner
performance information to more
clearly link to programmatic goals so
managers can take appropriate actions
to improve overall program
performance.
Action taken, but not
completed
EPA updated the PART Follow-Up Status following completion of Fall PARTWeb Update on December 15, 2006.
PPA-18
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
This table includes PART performance measures that do not report annual results (long-
term performance measures) or that have targets under development (UD). The annual
and efficiency measures included in this table will be incorporated into EPA's budget and
GPRA documents as data become available. The "Year Data Available" column provides
the most current estimate for the date EPA expects to report on each measure.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PART Program
Goal 1:
EPA Acid Rain
Program
EPA Acid Rain
Program
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
Mobile Source Air
Pollution Standards
and Certification
EPA Indoor Air
Quality
EPA Indoor Air
Quality
NAAQS and Regional
Haze Programs
NAAQS and Regional
Haze Programs
PART Measures
Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Long-Term Performance Measure
Percent of change in number of chronically acidic waterbodies in acid
sensitive regions.
Tons of sulfur dioxide emissions reduced from electric power
generating sources.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) 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.
Tons of fine paniculate matter (PM2.5) reduced since 2000 from
mobile sources.
Estimated future premature lung cancer deaths prevented annually
through lowered radon exposure.
Total number of schools implementing an effective Indoor Air Quality
Plan.
Percent improvement in visibility on 20% worst days, on average for all
eastern Class I areas.
Percent improvement in visibility on 20% worst days, on average to
western Class I areas.
Year Data
Available
FY 2030
FY2010
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2012
FY 2009
FY2018
FY2018
PPA-19
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PART Program
NAAQS and Regional
Haze Program,
Air Quality Grants and
Permitting
NAAQS and Regional
Haze Program,
Air Quality Grants and
Permitting
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
Research
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
Research
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
Research
Stratospheric Ozone
Protection
Stratospheric Ozone
Protection
Stratospheric Ozone
Protection
Toxic Air Pollutants
Toxic Air Pollutants
Air Quality Grants and
Permitting
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
Research
PART Measures
Percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine
paniculate matter (PM 2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003
baseline.
Percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of
ozone in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
Percentage of ORD-developed outputs appearing in the Office of Air
and Radiation National Ambient Air Quality Standard Staff Paper (SP)
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.
Progress toward reducing uncertainty in the science that supports
standard setting and air quality management decisions.
By 2011, total equivalent stratospheric chlorine will have reached its
peak, and begun its gradual decline to a value less than 3.4 parts per
billion of air by volume.
Elimination of U.S. consumption of Class II Ozone Depleting
substances measured intons/yr. of Ozone Depleting Potential (OOP).
Reduced incidence of melanoma skin cancers, measured by new skin
cancer cases avoided per 100,000 population.
Percentage reduction in tons toxicity-weighted cancer risk emissions
from 1993 baseline.
Percentage reduction in tons toxicity-weighted of non-cancer risk
emissions from 1993 baseline.
Annual Performance Measure
Average number of days during the ozone season that the ozone
standard is exceeded in baseline non-attainment areas, weighted by
population.
Percentage of program publications rated as highly cited papers.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Year Data
Available
FY2015
FY2015
FY2010
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY2011
FY2010
FY 2050
FY2010
FY2010
UD
FY 2007
PPA-20
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PART Program
Mobile Source Air
Pollution Standards
and Certification
Mobile Source Air
Pollution Standards
and Certification
NAAQS and Regional
Haze Programs
Toxic Air Pollutants -
Regulations and
Regional Support
Goal 2:
Alaska Native Villages
Alaska Native Villages
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Drinking Water
Research
Drinking Water
Research
Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund
Nonpoint Source
Tribal General
Assistance Program
Tribal General
Assistance Program
Tribal General
Assistance Program
PART Measures
Percent reduction in time (days) per certificate approval for large
engines (nonroad ci, Heavy duty gas and diesel engines).
Tons of pollutants (VOC, NOX, PM, CO) reduced per total emission
reduction dollars spent.
Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days to process State
Implementation Plan revisions, weighted by complexity
Tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer and noncancer risk) emissions
reduced per total cost ($).
Clean and Safe Water
Long-Term Performance Measure
100% of serviceable rural Alaska homes will have access to drinking
water supply and wastewater disposal by 20 1 1 .
100% of Alaska rural population served by public water systems in
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory requirements
by 2011.
CWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level ($billions/yr)
Indep. Exp. Rev. Panel summary score on tool designed to measure the
use of ORD data, tools, and technologies for key decisions leading to
scientifically-sound 6 Year Review Decisions made by OW
Indep. Exp. Rev. Panel summary score on tool designed to measure the
use of ORD data, tools, and technologies for key decisions leading to
scientifically-sound CCL decisions made by the OW
DWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level ($billions/yr)
Number of waterbodies identified by states (in 2000 or subsequent
years) as being primarily NPS-impaired that are partially or fully
restored.
Percent decrease in the number of homes on tribal lands lacking access
to safe drinking water.
Percent decrease in the number of homes in Indian Country with
inadequate wastewater sanitation systems.
Show an improvement for each of four parameters — total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, and fecal conforms — at not fewer than
90 monitoring stations in tribal waters.
Year Data
Available
FY2012
UD
FY 2008
UD
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2010
FY2018
FY2011
FY 2007
FY 2007
UD
PPA-21
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PART Program
Underground Injection
Control
Water Quality
Research
Water Quality
Research
Drinking Water
Protection Program
Drinking Water
Research
Drinking Water
Research
Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund
Underground Injection
Control Grant Program
Goal 3:
EPA's Recycling,
Waste Minimization,
and Waste
Management Program
EPA Support for
Cleanup of Federal
Facilities
EPA Support for
Cleanup of Federal
Facilities
Land Protection and
Restoration Research
Land Protection and
Restoration Research
PART Measures
Percent of CWS for which minimized risk to public health through
source water protection is achieved.
Percentage of WQRP publications rated as highly cited publications.
Percentage of WQRP publications in "high impact" journals.
Annual Performance Measure
Percent of data for violations of health-based standards at public water
systems that is accurate and complete in SDWIS/FED for all MCL and
TT rules.
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.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Average funding (millions of dollars) per project initiating operations
Dollars per well to move Class V wells back into compliance
Land Preservation and Restoration
Long-Term Performance Measure
By 2008, update controls for preventing releases at 150 RCRA HWM
facilities due for permit renewal.
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).
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).
Percentage of Land research publications rated as highly cited
publications.
Percentage of Land publications in "high impact" journals.
Year Data
Available
FY2011
FY 2008
FY 2008
UD
UD
UD
FY 2008
FY2011
FY 2008
FY2011
FY2011
FY 2008
FY 2008
PPA-22
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PART Program
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Cleanup
Program
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Cleanup
Program
Oil Spill Control
Superfund Remedial
Action
Superfund Remedial
Action
Superfund Remedial
Action
Superfund Removal
Superfund Removal
EPA's Recycling,
Waste Minimization,
and Waste
Management Program
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Cleanup
Program
Goal 4:
Brownfields
Revitalization
Chesapeake Bay
Program
Chesapeake Bay
Program
Ecological Research
PART Measures
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.
Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters by facilities subject to the
Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations.
Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater migration under
control.
Acres of land ready for re-use at Superfund sites.
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
Tons of municipal solid waste recycled over total net costs of recovery.
Cleanups complete (3 -year rolling average) per total cleanup dollars.
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Long-Term Performance Measure
Assessed or cleaned Brownfields properties redeveloped.
Percent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal of 185,000 acres
achieved, based on annual monitoring from prior year.
Percent of Dissolved Oxygen goal of 100% standards attainment
achieved, based on annual monitoring from the previous calendar year
and the preceding 2 years.
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.
Year Data
Available
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
UD
UD
UD
FY2011
FY2011
FY 2008
PPA-23
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PART Program
Ecological Research
Ecological Research
Ecological Research
Endocrine Disrupters
Endocrine Disrupters
Human Health
Research
Human Health
Research
Human Health
Research
Human Health
Research
Human Health
Research
Human Health
Research
Human Health
Research
Human Health
Research
PART Measures
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
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
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
Determination of the extent of the impact of endocrine disrupters on
humans, wildlife, and the environment to better inform the federal and
scientific communities.
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
Percentage of peer-reviewed EPA RAs where 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
Percentage of human health program publications rated as highly cited
papers.
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.
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).
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 stressors.
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).
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).
Year Data
Available
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2007
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
FY 2009
PPA-24
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PART Program
Human Health Risk
Assessment
Human Health Risk
Assessment
Lead-Based Paint Risk
Reduction Program
Pesticide Registration
Pollution Prevention
Program
Pollution Prevention
Program
U.S. -Mexico Border
Water Infrastructure
U.S. -Mexico Border
Water Infrastructure
U.S. -Mexico Border
Water Infrastructure
Brownfields
Revitalization
New Chemicals
Pesticide Field
Program
Pesticide Field
Program
Pesticide
Reregistration
Goal 5:
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
(Civil)
PART Measures
Percentage of regulatory decisions in which decision-makers used
HHRA peer-reviewed health assessments
Usefulness of HHRA's Air Quality Criteria Documents (AQCDs),
represented by the number of days between the completion of AQCD
peer review and publication of the EPA staff document that relies on
AQCD findings
Number of cases of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead
levels (>10ug/dl).
Percent of agricultural watersheds that exceed EPA aquatic life
benchmarks for two key pesticides.
Cumulative pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program
participants.
Cumulative business, institutional and government costs reduced by P2
program participants.
Percentage of water quality standards met in shared and transboundary
surface waters.
Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater sanitation
in the Mexican Border area that lacked access to adequate wastewater
sanitation in 2003.
Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water in the
Mexican Border area that lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Acres of brownfields made ready for reuse per million dollars.
Review costs per chemical (for EPA and industry)
Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered
Species List.
Reduced cost per pesticide occupational incident avoided.
Reduction in cost per Reregistration Eligibility Decision
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Long-Term Performance Measure
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, (civil enforcement)
Year Data
Available
FY 2008
FY 2007
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
FY2011
FY2011
UD
UD
FY2011
FY2011
FY 2008
FY 2007
PPA-25
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PART Program
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Environmental
Education
EPA Environmental
Education
EPA's Recycling,
Waste Minimization,
and Waste
Management Program
EPA Tribal General
Assistance Program
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Environmental
Education
PART Measures
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated. (criminal
enforcement)
Reduction in recidivism, (criminal enforcement)
Change in behavior to use Improved management practices, (criminal
enforcement)
Number of states adopting or aligning Guidelines for Learning curricula
and standards to state academic standards or number of states
developing new environmental education standards based on Guidelines
for Learning.
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.
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.
Show improvement for each of 4 parameters -total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, DO, and fecal coliforms — at not fewer than 90 monitoring
stations in tribal waters for which baseline data are available.
Annual Performance Measure
Change in behavior to use Improved Management practices, (criminal
enforcement)
Pollutant impact.
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated or eliminated, (criminal
enforcement)
Reduction in recidivism (criminal enforcement).
Number of NNEMS fellows who pursue environmental careers.
Year Data
Available
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2008
FY 2008
FY2012
FY 2007
FY2008
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
PPA-26
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL (PART)
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PART Program
EPA Pesticide
Enforcement Grant
Program
EPA Pesticide
Enforcement Grant
Program
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
(Civil)
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Environmental
Education
EPA Pesticide
Enforcement Grant
Program
EPA's Recycling,
Waste Minimization,
and Waste
Management Program
PART Measures
Percent of compliance actions taken as a result of
inspection/enforcement, (pesticide enforcement)
Percent of violators committing subsequent violations, (pesticide
enforcement)
Efficiency Performance Measure
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated per FTE. (civil
enforcement)
Pounds of pollutant reduction per FTE. (criminal enforcement)
Ratio of number of students/teachers that have improved environmental
knowledge per total dollars expended.
Number of enforcement actions taken (Federal + State) per million
dollars of cost (Federal + State), (pesticide enforcement)
Pounds of priority chemicals reduced in waste streams per federal and
private sector costs.
Year Data
Available
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2007
UD
PPA-27
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Environmental Programs
INTRODUCTION:
The table included in this appendix presents targets and results for all of EPA's annual performance goals (APGs) and measures for FY 2005 and FY
2006 and targets for FY 2007 and FY 2008. It contains the most current performance data and targets available.
As EPA has continued to improve and refine its performance measures, it has changed some APGs and measures over the years. As a result, targets
and data may not be available for all four fiscal years included in the table, and some cells will appear blank.
The table groups performance measures first by Goal, then by Strategic Objective, and finally under the APGs to which they apply. Measures that
are not currently used for the Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics. The
background information included with APGs provides context for EPA's statement of intended performance with respect to its past accomplishments
and progress towards longer-term strategic objectives.
Data that EPA has used to measure its performance are described in the "Supplemental Information" to this report, provided on the internet at
www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2008/verify validation.pdf
PPA-28
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity
by enhancing partnerships with businesses and other sectors.
OBJECTIVE: HEALTHIER OUTDOOR AIR
Through 2011, 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.
Air Quality Index
In 2008 Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003, weighted by population and AQI value.
In 2007 Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003, weighted by population and AQI value.
In 2006 Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003, weighted by population and AQI value.
In 2005 Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003, weighted by population and AQI value.
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY 2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with 13 32.1 17 Data Avail 21 26 Percent
Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003, 2007
weighted by population and AQI value.
Background: Baseline was zero in 2003.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM-10
In 2008 Tons of paniculate matter (PM-10) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
In 2007 Tons of paniculate matter (PM-10) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
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).
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE PPA-29 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2005 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM-10 standard will increase by 1%
(relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative to 1992).
FY 2005
Performance Measures Target Actual
Tons of PM-10 Reduced since 2000 from Mobile Sources 62,161 62,161
FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Target Actual Target Target
74,594 Data Avail 87,026 99,458
2007
Unit
Tons
Background: 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 2008 Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
In 2007 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone standard.
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 2005) for a cumulative total of 8% (relative to 2001).
In 2005 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient ozone concentrations below the NAAQS for the 8-hour ozone standard will increase by
4% (relative to 2004) for a cumulative total of 7% (relative to 2001).
Performance Measures
Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted
ambient concentration of ozone in monitored counties
from 2003 baseline.
Limit the increase of CO emissions (in tons) from mobile
sources compared to a 2000 baseline.
Millions of Tons of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Reduced since 2000 from Mobile Sources
Millions of Tons of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Reduced
since 2000 Reduced from Mobile Sources
FY
Target
3
0.84
0.86
1.69
2005
Actual
6
0.84
0.86
1.69
FY
Target
5
1.01
1.03
2.03
2006
Actual
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
6
1.18
1.20
2.37
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
8
1.35
1.37
2.71
Unit
Percent
Million Tons
Million Tons
Million Tons
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
PPA-30
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Background: The ozone concentration measure reflects improvements (reductions) in ambient ozone concentrations across all monitored counties, weighted by the
populations in those areas. To calculate the 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. The 2003 baseline is 15,972 million people-ppb. 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, 11.8M tons for
mobile source NOx emissions, and 79.2 M tons for CO.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM- 2.5
In 2008 Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine paniculate matter (PM-2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003
baseline.
In 2007 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM-2.5 standard.
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 The number of people living in areas with monitored ambient PM concentrations below the NAAQS for the PM-2.5 standard will increase by 1%
(relative to 2003) for a cumulative total of less than 1% (relative to 2001).
Performance Measures
Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted
ambient concentration of fine paniculate matter (PM-2.5)
in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
Tons of PM-2.5 Reduced since 2000 from Mobile
Sources
FY 2005
Target Actual
2 Data Avail
2007
61,217 61,217
FY 2006
Target Actual
2 Data Avail
2007
73,460 Data Avail
2007
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
3
85,704
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
4
97,947
Unit
Percent
Tons
Background: The PM 2.5 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/mg3. The 2003 baseline is 2.581 baseline is 2,581 million people-ug/mg3. 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 510,550 tons.
Acid Rain
In 2008 Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress towards achieving the year 2010 SO2 emissions cap for
utilities. Annual emissions reduction target is 8.0 million tons from the 1980 baseline.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE PPA-31 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2007 Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress towards achieving the year 2010 SO2 emissions cap for
utilities. Annual emissions reduction target is 7.5 million tons from the 1980 baseline.
In 2007 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.
In 2007 Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate concentrations 29% from baseline.
In 2006 Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress towards achieving the year 2010 SO2 emissions cap for
utilities. Annual emissions reduction target is 7.0 million tons from the 1980 baseline.
In 2005 Keep annual emissions below level authorized by allowance holdings and make progress towards achieving the year 2010 SO2 emissions cap for
utilities. Annual emissions reduction target is 6.9 million tons from the 1980 baseline.
Performance Measures
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
Tons of sulfur dioxide emissions from electric power
generation sources
Percent change in average nitrogen deposition and mean
total ambient nitrate concentrations reduced.
6,900,000 7,200,000
7,000,000 Data Avail 7,500,000 8,000,000 Tons Reduced
2007
10
No Targets Percentage
Established
Percent change in average sulfur deposition and mean
ambient sulfate concentrations reduced.
29
No Targets Percentage
Established
Background: The baseline year is 1980. 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 is 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, 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 sulfur and nitrogen deposition
are critical to reducing the number of chronically acidic water bodies. Ambient sulfate and ambient nitrate ("acid rain" paniculate") contribute to
unhealthy air and respiratory problems in humans, especially children and other sensitive populations. The baseline is established from monitored site
1 EPA will track progress against this performance metric triennially with the next planned report date in FY 2010. There is no performance target for FY 2008.
2 EPA will track progress against this performance metric triennially with the next planned report date in FY 2010. There is no performance target for FY 2008.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
PPA-32
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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).
Air Toxicity-Weighted
In 2008 Cumulative reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted for non-cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
In 2008 Cumulative reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted for cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
In 2007 Reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted for cancer and non-cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
In 2006 Reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted for cancer and non-cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual
Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity -
weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from
1993 baseline.
Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity -
weighted (for noncancer risk) emissions of air toxics from
1993 baseline.
Target
34
58
Actual
Data Avail
2007
Data Avail
2007
Target
35
58
Target
35
59
Unit
Percent
Percent
Background: The toxicity-weighted emission inventory will utilize the National Emissions Inventory (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. The baseline is in 1993. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years to generate inventories for the NEI,
which replaced the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). In intervening years between updates of the NEI, the model EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling
System for Hazardous Air Pollutants) is used to estimate and project annual emissions of air toxics. As new inventories are completed and improved
inventory data is added, the baseline (or total tons of air toxics) is adjusted. The 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.
New Source Review
In 2008 Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application.
In 2007 Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application.
In 2006 Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
PPA-33
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
In 2005
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application.
FY 2005
Performance Measures Target Actual
Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of 65 69
receiving a complete permit application.
FY 2006 FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target Actual Target
70 Data Avail 75
2007
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target Unit
78 Percent
Background: The baseline for NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application is 61% in 2004.
Title V
In 2008 Percent of significant and new Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
In 2007 Percent of significant and new Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
In 2006 Percent of significant and new Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
In 2005 Percent of significant and new Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of recieving a complete permit application.
FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target
Percent of significant Title V operating permit revisions 88
issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit
application.
Percent of new Title V operating permits issued within 18 79
months of receiving a complete permit application.
88 91 Data Avail 94
2007
79 83 Data Avail 87
2007
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target Unit
97 Percentage
91 Percentage
Background:
OBJECTIVE: HEALTHIER INDOOR AIR
The 2004 baseline for significant title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application is 85% and the
baseline for new title V operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
PPA-34
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Through 2012, working with partners, reduce human health risks by reducing exposure to indoor air contaminants through the promotion of
voluntary actions by the public.
Healthier Residential Indoor Air
In 2008 Additional people will be living in homes with healthier indoor air.
In 2007 Additional people will be living in homes with healither indoor air.
In 2006 850,000 additional people will be living in homes with healthier indoor air.
In 2005 Additional people will be living in homes with healthier indoor air.
Performance Measures
Number of additional homes (new and existing) with
radon reducing features
Number of people taking all essential actions to reduce
exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers.
FY 2005
Target Actual
173,000 Data Avail
2007
FY 2006
Target Actual
180,000 Data Avail
2007
4,100,000 Data Avail
2007
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
190,000
No Target
Established
3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
225,000
No Target
Established
4
Unit
Homes
Number
Percent of public that is aware of the asthma program's 31 31 >20 33 >20
media campaign.
Additional health care professionals trained annually by 3380 3380 2000 Data Avail 2000
EPA and its partner on the environmental management of 2007
asthma triggers.
>20 Percentage
2000
Number
Background: This performance measure includes EPA radon and asthma work. By 2008, the number of people living in homes built (new or existing) with radon
reducing features will be 225,000. The baseline for the performance measure is 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 mailed to home
builders. The survey responses are analyzed, with respect to State market areas and Census Division in the U.S., 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-
3 EPA will track performance against this metric triennially with the next planned report date in FY 2009. There are no performance targets for FY 2007 and FY 2008.
4 EPA will track performance against this metric triennially with the next planned report date in FY 2009. There are no performance targets for FY 2007 and FY 2008.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
PPA-35
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 2008 Students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.
In 2007 Students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.
In 2006 630,000 students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.
In 2005 Students, faculty and staff will experience improved indoor air quality in their schools.
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Estimated annual number of schools establishing indoor
air quality programs based on EPA's Tools for Schools
guidance.
3000
3000
1200
Data Avail
2007
1100
1100
Number
Background: 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 2030, through worldwide action, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly begun the process of
recovery, and overexposure to ultraviolet radiation, particularly among susceptible subpopulations, such as children, will be reduced.
Restrict Domestic Consumption of Class II HCFCs
In 2008 Remaining U.S. consumption of class II HCFCs will be below 9,900 OOP-weighted metric tonnes (OOP MTs).
In 2007 Remaining U.S. consumption of class II HCFCs will be below 9,900 OOP-weighted metric tonnes (OOP MTs).
In 2006 Restrict domestic annual consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 OOP-weighted metric tonnes (OOP MTs) and restrict domestic exempted
production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons below 10,000 OOP MTs.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
PPA-36
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2005 Restrict domestic annual consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP MTs) and restrict domestic exempted
production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons below 10,000 ODP MTs.
Performance Measures
Remaining U.S. Consumption of HCFCs in tons of Ozone
Depleting Potential (ODP).
FY 2005
Target Actual
<9,900 Data Avail
2007
FY 2006
Target Actual
<9,900 Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
<9,900
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
<9,900
Unit
ODP MTs
Background: The base of comparison for assessing progress on the 2005 annual performance goal is the domestic consumption cap of class II HCFCs as set by the
Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) is weighted based on the damage it does to the stratospheric ozone - this is its
ozone-depletion potential (ODP). Beginning on January 1, 1996, the cap was set at the sum of 2.8 percent of the domestic ODP-weighted consumption
of CFCs in 1989 plus the ODP-weighted level of HCFCs in 1989. Consumption equals production plus import minus export.
OBJECTIVE: RADIATION
Through 2011, 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 2007 PART assessment. The program
will have new performance measures to report in FY 2009. EPA will continue to track progress on routine program indicators such as
preparedness and response capability for radiological incidents.
OBJECTIVE: REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY
Through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs, contribute 80 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) annually to the
President's 18 percent greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity goal by 2012. (An additional 24 MMTCE to result from the sustained growth in the
climate programs are reflected in the Administration's business-as-usual projection for GHG intensity improvement. )
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2008 Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas reductions in the building, industrial, and transportation sectors.
In 2007 Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 96.2 MMTCE per year through EPA partnerships with businesses,
schools, state and local governments, and other organizations.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE PPA-3 7 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2006 Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 102 MMTCE per year through EPA partnerships with businesses,
schools, state and local governments, and other organizations.
In 2005 Greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced from projected levels by approximately 90 MMTCE per year through EPA partnerships with businesses,
schools, state and local governments, and other organizations.
Performance Measures
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of
greenhouse gas reductions in the buildings sector.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of
greenhouse gas reductions in the transportation sector.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of
greenhouse gas reductions in the industry sector.
FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target Actual Target Actual Target
23.8 29.9 26.5 Data Avail 29.4
2007
2.9 2.9 1.2 Data Avail 1.6
2007
53.5 58.7 58 Data Avail 62.6
2007
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
32
1.5
68
Unit
MMTCE
MMTCE
MMCTE
Background: 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 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimate ActionReport.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 2011, 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
Clean Air Research
In 2008 Increased use of clean air research program products.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
PPA-38
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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, the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) has improved
assessments of health risks to develop PM standards that maximize protection of human health, as determined by independent expert review.
In 2005 By FY 2005, deliver and transfer improved receptor models and data on chemical compounds emitted from sources so that, by 2006, EPA's Office of
Air and Radiation and the states have the necessary new data and tools to predict, measure, and reduce ambient PM and PM emissions to attain the
existing PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the protection of public health.
FY 2005
FY 2006
Performance Measures
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air Baseline 5 10 10 30 50 Percent
pollutant sources based on the risk they pose to human
health. (Research)
Percent planned actions accomplished toward the long- 91 94 100 94 100 100 Percent
term goal of reducing uncertainty in the science that
support standard setting and air quality management
decisions. (Research)
Background: By FY 2006, the program established 10% of a hierarchy of air pollutant sources based on the risk they pose to human health. By FY 2008, the program
plans to complete 50% of this hierarchy. Additionally, the program plans to meet 100% of its planned actions in FY 2008, an improvement from 94%
completion in FY 2005. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of developing a better understanding and characterization
of human health and environmental outcomes related to clean air.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
PPA-39
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
Ensure drinking water is safe. Restore and maintain oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and
recreational activities, and provide healthy habitat for fish, plants, and wildlife.
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 2008 90% of the population served by community water systems that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through approaches
including effective treatment and source water protection.
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 served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards
through effective treatment and source water protection.
In 2005 93% of the population served by community water systems will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards
through effective treatment and source water protection.
Performance Measures
FY 2005 FY 2006
Target Actual Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Target Target
Unit
Percent of the population served by community water
systems in Indian country that receives drinking water
that meets all applicable health-based drinking water
standards.
% population served by CWS that receive drinking water
that meets all applicable health-based DW standards
through approaches including effective treatment and
source water protection.
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
86.3
86.3
90
93
86.6
89
93
94
86
90
% Population
% population
PPA-40
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Measures
Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF
Number of additional projects initiating
operations
Percent of community water systems that have undergons
FY
Target
81.9
415
; 94
2005
Actual
84.7
43.9
94
FY
Target
83.3
425
98
2006
Actual
86.9
399
94
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
84
433
98
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
86
440
95
Unit
%Rate
Projects
% CWS
a sanitary survey within the past three years (five years
for outstanding performance).
Percentage of identified Class V motor vehicle waste
disposal wells closed or permitted.
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 prohibited Class IV and high-priority,
identified, potentially endangering Class V wells closed
or permitted in ground-water based source water areas
(under development).
Percent of community water systems that meet all
applicable health-based standards through approaches that
include effective treatment and source water protection.
Percent of person months during which community water
systems provide drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based standards.
93
89
93
89
94
90
98
96
89.5
95
Wells
Wells
Wells
% Systems
% CWS
Background: 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.
River/Lake Assessments for Fish Consumption
In 2008 Improve the quality of recreation waters.
In 2008 Reduce public health risk and allow increased consumption of fish and shellfish.
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
PPA-41
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 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 2005 Coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored by State beach safety programs will be open and safe for swimming in over 94% of the days of the beach
season.
Performance Measures
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Target Actual Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Percentage of women of childbearing age having mercury
levels in blood above the level of concern.
Percent of state-monitored shellfish-growing acres
impacted by anthropogenic sources that are approved or
conditionally approved for use.
Maintain the number ofwaterborne disease outbreaks
attributable to swimming in or other recreational contact
with coastal and Great Lakes waters measured as a 5-
year average.
Days (of beach season) that coastal and Great Lakes
beaches monitored by State beach safety programs are
open and safe for swimming.
5.5 % of women
65-85
% Areas
Outbreaks
96
96
94
97
95
96
Days/Season
Background: In 1999, 7% of the Nation's rivers and 15% of the Nation's lakes were assessed to determine if they contained fish that should not be eaten or should be
eaten in only limited quantities. In September 1999, 25 states/tribes are monitoring and conducting assessments based on the national guidance to
establish nationally consistent fish advisories. In the 2000 Report to Congress on the National Water Quality Inventory, 69% of assessed river and
stream miles; 63% of assessed lake, reservoir, and pond acres; and 53% of assessed estuary square miles supported their designated use for fish
consumption. For shell fish consumption, 77% of assessed estuary square miles met this designated use.
OBJECTIVE: PROTECT WATER QUALITY
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
PPA-42
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Watershed Protection
In 2008 Use pollution prevention and restoration approaches to protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis.
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 Water quality standards are fully attained in over 25% of miles/acres of waters by 2012, with an interim milestone of restoring 2% of these waters
identified in 2000 as not attaining standards - by 2005.
Performance Measures
Number of waterbody segments identified by States in
2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality
standards are now fully attained (cumulative).
Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF
Percentage of all major publicly -owned treatment works
(POTWs) that comply with their permitted wastewater
discharge standards.
Reduction in phosphorus loadings (millions of pounds).
Additional pounds (in millions) of reduction to total
nitrogen loadings.
Additional tons of reduction to total sediment loadings.
Number of waterbodies identified by States (in 2000 or
FY 2005 FY 2006
Target Actual Target Actual
90 95.4 93.3 94.7
4.5 Data Avail
2007
8.5 Data Avail
2007
700,000 Data Avail
2007
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
93.4
4.5
8.5
700,000
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
1100
93.5
86
4.5
8.5
700,000
250
Unit
Number of
Segments
Rate
POTWs
Ibs in millions
Ibs in millions
Ibs
waterbodies
subsequent years) as being primarily NPS-impaired that
are partially or fully restored.
Number of TMDLs that are established by States and
approved by EPA on schedule consistent with national
policy, (cumulative)
14,462
15,338
18,692
19,368
21,923
24,411
TMDLs
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
PPA-43
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target
Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits that are 95
scheduled to be reissued.
Percentage of majors in Significant Noncompliance 19.7
(SNC) at any time during the fiscal year.
Percentage of submissions of new or revised water quality 89.5
104 95 96.4 95
19.70 22.5 Data Avail 22.5
2007
83.5 90.9 89 85
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target Unit
95 % permits
22.5 % majors
87 % submissions
17,767
18,660
20,501
23,185
25,811
28,401
TMDLs
38
95
38
100
54
95
54
98.5
54
95
54
95
68
% waters
% permits
% wq criteria
standards from States, and Territories that are approved
by EPA.
Number of TMDLs required that are established or
approved by EPA on a schedule consistent with national
policy, (cumulative)
Percentage of waters accessed using statistically valid
surveys.
Percent of high priority EPA and state NPDES permits
that are reissued on schedule.
% of S & Terr, that, within the preceding 3-yr. period,
submitted new or revised wq criteria acceptable to EPA
that reflect new scientific info from EPA or sources not
considered in prev stnd.
Background: 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
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.
Coastal and Ocean Waters
In 2008 Improve National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale.)
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
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
PPA-44
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2005 Scores for overall aquatic system health of coastal waters nationally, and in each coastal region, is improved on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the
National Coastal Condition Report by at least 0.1 point
Performance Measures
National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for
overall aquatic ecosystem health of coastal waters
nationally (1-5 scale).
FY 2005
Target Actual
2.7 Data Avail
2008
FY 2006
Target Actual
2.7 Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
2.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
2.8
Unit
Scale score
Active dredged material ocean dumping sites will have
achieved environmentally acceptable conditions (as
reflected in each site's management plans.)
95
% Sites
Background: National rating of "fair/poor" or 2.4 where the rating is based on a 5-point system where 1 is poor and 5 is good and is expressed as an aerially weighted
mean of regional scores using the National Coastal Condition Report indicators [i.e., water clarity, dissolved oxygen, coastal wetlands loss, eutrophic
conditions, sediment contamination, benthic health, and fish tissue contamination]. The 2002 National Coastal Condition Report indicated 4.3 for water
clarity and 4.5 for dissolved oxygen, 1.4 for coastal wetlands loss; 1.3 for contamination of sediments in coastal waters; 1.4 for benthic quality; & 1.7
for eutrophic condition.
Alaska Native Villages
In 2008 Percent serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Performance Measures
Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to 88 Homes
drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
Background: In 2003, 77% of serviceable rural Alaska homes had access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE RESEARCH TO SUPPORT CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
By 2011, conduct leading-edge, sound scientific research to support the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure
to contaminants in drinking water, fish and shellfish, and recreational waters and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems-specifically,
the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams, and coastal and ocean waters.
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
PPA-45
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Research
Drinking Water Research
In 2008 Increased use of drinking water research products
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.
In 2005 Increased use of drinking water research products
FY 2005
Performance Measures
Percentage of planned outpi
its delivered in supp<
Target
art of Six 100
Actual
90
FY 2006
Target
100
Actual
94
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
100
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
100
Unit
Percent
Year Review decisions. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of
Contaminate Candidate List Decisions. (Research)
100
60
100
100
100
100
Percent
Background: In FY 2008, the program plans to deliver 100% of its planned outputs in support of both Contaminant Candidate List and Six Year Review decisions. In
2006, the program completed 100% and 94% of its planned outputs in these areas, respectively. In achieving its 2008 targets, the program will
contribute to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in drinking water.
Water Quality Research
In 2008 Increased use of water quality research products
In 2007 Increased use of water quality research products
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.
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
PPA-46
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2005 By 2005, provide methods for developing water quality criteria so that, by 2008, approaches and methods are available to States and Tribes for their use
in developing and applying criteria for habitat alteration, nutrients, suspended and bedded sediments, pathogens and toxic chemicals that will support
designated uses for aquatic ecosystems and increase the scientific basis for listing and delisting impaired water bodies under Section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act.
FY 2005
FY 2006
Performance Measures
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long- 100
term goal #1) delivered. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long- 100
term goal #2) delivered. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long- 100
term goal #3) delivered. (Research)
100
67
71
100
100
100
100
100
92
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Percent
Percent
Background: In FY 2008, the program plans to deliver 100% of its planned outputs in support of each of its long-term goals. In FY 2006, the program completed
100% of its planned outputs in support of two of its long-term goals, and 92% of its planned outputs in support of its third. In achieving its FY 2008
targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of supporting the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to
contaminants in fish, shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
PPA-47
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
Preserve and restore the land by using innovative waste management practices and cleaning up contaminated properties to reduce risks posed by
releases of harmful substances.
OBJECTIVE: PRESERVE LAND
By 2011, 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 2008 Divert 35% (87.3 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 2008 Increase reuse and recycling of construction and demolition debris.
In 2008 Increase the number of tribes covered by an adequate and recently-approved integrated solid waste management plan, and close, clean up, or upgrade
open dumps in Indian Country and on other tribal lands.
In 2008 Increase use of coal combustion ash rather than disposing of it.
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 2007 Increase reuse and recycling of construction and demolition debris.
In 2007 Increase the number of tribes covered by an adequate and recently-approved integrated solid waste management plan, and close, clean up, or upgrade
open dumps in Indian Country and on other tribal lands.
In 2007 Increase use of coal combustion ash rather and disposing of it.
In 2006 Divert 33.4% (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 Divert an additional 1% (for a cumulative total of 35% or 81 million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain per
capita generation of RCRA municipal solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day.
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
PPA-48
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Measures
Percentage of construction and demolition debris that is
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
62
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
62.8
Unit
percent
reused or recycled.
Millions of tons of municipal solid waste diverted.
Percentage of coal combustion ash that is used instead of
disposed.
Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste.
Number of closed, cleaned up, or upgraded open dumps
in Indian Country or on other tribal lands.
Number of tribes covered by an adequate and recently-
approved integrated solid waste management plan.
81
79
83.1
4.5
4.5
4.5
Data Avail
2008
Data Avail
2008
85.2
4.5
30
27
87.3
1.8
4.5
30
26
million tons
percent
Ibs. MSW
open dumps
tribes
Background: An analysis conducted at the end of FY 2005 shows approximately 79 million tons (33%) of municipal solid waste diverted and 4.5 Ibs of MSW per
person daily generation. There is a two-year data lag in reporting these data. In terms of construction and demolition debris, in 2003, 164 million tons
was generated from buildings (of which 28% was recycled), and 167.3 million tons was generated from roads (of which 88% was recycled). The total
C&D debris generated was 331.3 million tons with 59% recycled (or 195.3 million tons). Debris from bridges, land clearing and excavations are not
included in EPA's characterization. The annual percentage increase in C&D debris reuse and recycling is expected despite an anticipated increase in
debris generation. There is a two-year data lag in reporting these data. For coal combustion ash, approximately 125 millions tons are generated annually,
and in 2001, 32% was used rather than landfilled. The annual increase in use is targeted although associated increases in generation are also expected
annually. There is a one-year data lag in reporting these data. With respect to the tribal data, targets are established relative to 2006 when new criteria
for reporting were identified.
Waste and Petroleum Management Controls
In 2008 Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.
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 Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
PPA-49
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Measures
Annual increase in the percentage of RCRA hazardous
FY 2005
Target Actual
2.8 3.1
FY 2006
Target Actual
2.5 4.3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
2.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
1.8
Unit
percent
waste management facilities with permits or other
approved controls.
No more than 10,000 confirmed releases per year.
Increase the rate of significant operational compliance by
1% over the previous year's rate (target).
<10,000
65
7,421
66
<10,000
66
8,361
62
<10,000
67
<10,000
68
UST releases
percent
Background: FY 2004 was the first year that states and regional offices reported the percentage of UST facilities that are in significant operational compliance with
both release detection and release prevention (spill, overfill, and corrosion protection) requirements, out of a total estimated universe of approximately
256,000 facilities. At the end of FY 2006, 62 percent of USTs were in significant operational compliance with both release detection and release
prevention requirements. Given the inspection requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, some states are now targeting previously un-inspected
facilities, and these are more likely to be out-of-compliance. Between FY 1999 and FY 2006, confirmed UST releases averaged 10,534. At the end of
FY 2006, the percentage of hazardous waste management facilities with permits or other approved controls nationwide was 91.4 percent.
OBJECTIVE: RESTORE LAND
By 2011, 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 2008 Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from PRPs when EPA expends trust fund monies. Address
cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
In 2007 Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from PRPs when EPA expends trust fund monies. Address
cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
In 2006 Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from PRPs when EPA expends trust fund monies. Address
cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
In 2005 Ensure trust fund stewardship by getting PRPs to initiate or fund the work and recover costs from PRPs when EPA expends trust fund monies. Address
cost recovery at all NPL and non-NPL sites with a statute of limitations (SOL) on total past costs equal to or greater than $200,000.
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
PPA-50
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Measures
Refer to DOJ, settle, or write off 100% of Statute of
FY 2005
Target Actual
100 99
FY 2006
Target Actual
100 100
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
100
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
100
Unit
Percent
Limitations (SOLs) cases for SF sites with total
unaddressedpast costs equal to or greater than $200,000
and report value of costs recovered.
Background: In FY 1998 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 Participation
In 2008 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 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 2005 Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the time of the Remedial Action start at 90 percent of non-Federal Superfund sites that have viable,
liable parties.
In 2005 Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the time of the Remedial Action start at 90 percent of non-Federal Superfund sites that have viable,
liable parties.
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Percentage of Superfund sites at which settlement or 90 100 90 100 95 95 Percent
enforcement action taken before the start ofRA.
Background: In FY 1998 approximately 70% of new remedial work at NPL sites (excluding Federal facilities) was initiated by private parties. In FY 2003, 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.
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION PPA-51 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Assess and Cleanup Contaminated Land
In 2008 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 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 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.
Performance Measures
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Target Actual Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards
for human exposure and groundwater migration (tracked
as the number LUST cleanups completed).
Number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for
human exposure and groundwater migration on Indian
Country.
Superfund final site assessment decisions completed.
Annual number of Superfund sites with remedy
construction completed.
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).
Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater migration
under control.
Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where all
remedies have completed construction.
Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where the
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
14,500
30
500
40
10
14,583
53.
551
40
no data*
13,600
30
419
40
10
14,493
43
518
40
34
10
46
56
23
47
61
PPA-52
10
51
61
21
55
70
13,000 13,000
30
350
24
10
10
56
76
30
10
15
60
81
cleanups
cleanups
272 assessments
30 completions
sites
sites
sites
remedies
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2005
FY 2006
Performance Measures
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Target Target
Unit
final remedial decision for contaminants at the site has
been determined.
Percent of RCRA construction completions using 2008
baseline.
Percentage of RCRA CA facilities with current human
exposures under control (using 2008 baseline).
Percentage of RCRA CA facilities with migration of
contaminated groundwater under control (using 2008
baseline).
Number of Super/and sites ready for reuse site-wide.
13
82
68
22
89
74
25
92
77
30
27
95
81
30
percent
percent
percent
sites
Background: In FY 2004, Superfund controlled human exposures at 83% (1,242 of 1,493) of eligible NPL sites and controlled groundwater migration at 67% (875 of
1,306) of eligible NPL sites, completed construction at 62% (926 of 1,498) of the eligible NPL sites, selected final remedies at 67% (1,003 of 1,498) of
the eligible NPL sites. Of the 1,714 RCRA Corrective Action high priority facilities, 84% (1,440) have human exposures controlled and 70% (1,199)
have groundwater migration controlled, reflecting the strong EPA/state partnership in this program. The new performance measures for the RCRA
program reflect establishment of a new facility baseline (1,968 facilities) established in October 2004. In FY 2004, EPA completed 317,405 leaking
underground storage tank cleanups by the end of FY 2004. The Agency has worked with state partners to evaluate multi-year cleanup goals in light of
new pressures that have slowed the pace of cleanup in recent years. The result of this process has been a reduction of multi-year goals to a target
number that better reflects the current challenges. ( *In 2005, EPA conducted a comprehensive reassessment of the data used to determine the number of
Superfund sites with human exposure controlled in order to improve how actual conditions are accounted for at these sites. As a result, the definition of
the measure was revised to include achieving more permanent, long-term control and protection at these sites, which included a new baseline from
which to measure. Thus, there is no result for FY 2005.)
Prepare/Respond to Accidental/Intentional Release
In 2008 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 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.
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
PPA-53
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
In 2005
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 Measures
Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually.
Voluntary removal actions, overseen by EPA, completed.
Number of inspections and exercises conducted at oil
storage facilities that are required to have Facility
Response Plans.
FY
Target
195
105
360
2005
Actual
172
137
335
FY
Target
195
115
100
2006
Actual
157
93
345
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
195
120
200
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
195
125
250
Unit
removals
removals
inspections/
exercises
Percentage of inspected facilities subject to Spill
Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)
regulations found to be in compliance.
Percentage of inspected facilities subject to Facility
Response Plan (FRP) regulations found to be in
compliance.
Average state of emergency response readiness as
determined by readiness criteria.
100
100
100
77
100
100
50
71
53
75
55
55
78
65
percent
percent
percent
Background: By the end of FY 2004, there have been cumulative total of over 8,280 Superfund removal response actions initiated since 1980. EPA exceeded its FY
2004 expectations for readiness by reducing the core emergency response readiness deficit by 56%. EPA was involved in 308 oil spill responses in FY
2004. The Agency typically responds to or monitors 300 oil spill cleanups per year.
OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2011, provide and apply sound science for protecting and restoring land by conducting leading-edge research, which through
collaboration, leads to preferred environmental outcomes
Research
Land Protection and Restoration Research
In 2008 Increased use of land protection and restoration research products
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
PPA-54
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2007 Increased use of land protection and restoration research products
In 2006 Document the performance, including cost savings, of innovative characterization and remediation options, so that newer approaches with cost or
performance advantages are applied for Superfund and other cleanup projects.
In 2005 In FY 2005, complete at least four SITE demonstrations, with emphasis on NAPLs and sediments, in order to, by 2010, develop or evaluate 40 scientific
tools, technologies, methods, and models, and provide technical support that enable practitioners to 1) characterize the nature and extent of multimedia
contamination; 2) assess, predict, and communicate risks to human health and the environment; 3) employ improved remediation options; and 4)
respond to oil spills effectively.
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
management of material streams, conserve resources and
appropriately manage waste long-term goal.
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the 100 70 100 96 100 100 Percent
mitigation, management and long-term stewardship of
contaminated sites long-term goal.
Background: In FY 2008, the program plans to deliver 100% of its planned outputs in support of each of its long-term goals. In FY 2006, the program completed
100% of its planned outputs in support of its two long-term goals. In achieving its FY 2008 targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of
applying sound science in the protection and restoration of land.
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION PPA-5 5 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, or restore the health of people, communities, and ecosystems using integrated and comprehensive approaches and partnerships.
OBJECTIVE: CHEMICAL AND PESTICIDE RISKS
By 2011, prevent and reduce pesticide and industrial chemical risks to humans, communities, and ecosystems.
Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
In 2008 Decrease cost per pesticide occupational incident avoided.
In 2008 Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients, new uses) meet new health standards and are environmentally safe.
In 2008 Improve the health of those who work in or around pesticides by reaching a 50% reduction in moderate to severe incidents for six acutely toxic
agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rate.
In 2008 Percentage of acre treatments that will use applications of reduced-risk pesticides.
In 2008 Protect those occupationally exposed to pesticides by improving or maintaining a rate of 3.5 or less incidents per 100,000 potential risk events.
In 2008 Reduce concentration of pesticides detected in general population.
In 2008 Reduce decision times for registration of reduced risk chemicals.
In 2008 Register reduced risk pesticides, including biopesticides.
In 2007 Decrease cost per pesticide occupational incident avoided.
In 2007 Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients, new uses) meet new health standards and are environmentally safe.
In 2007 Improve the health of those who work in or around pesticides by reducing moderate to severe incidents for six acutely toxic agricultural pesticides with
the highest incident rate.
In 2007 Percentage of acre treatments that will use applications of reduced-risk pesticides.
In 2007 Reduce concentration of pesticides detected in general population.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-56
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2007 Reduce decision times for registration of reduced risk chemicals.
In 2007 Register reduced risk pesticides, including biopesticides.
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 2006 Reduce decision times for registration of reduced risk chemicals.
In 2006 Register reduced risk pesticides, including biopesticides.
In 2005 Ensure new pesticide registration actions (including new active ingredients, new uses) meet new health standards and are environmentally safe.
In 2005 Percentage of acre treatments that will use applications of reduced-risk pesticides
In 2005 Reduce decision times for registration of reduced risk chemicals.
In 2005 Register reduced risk pesticides, including biopesticides.
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Register reduced risk pesticides, including biopesticides. 14
New Chemicals (Active Ingredients) 8
New Uses 200
Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reduced-risk 13.5
pesticides.
Incidents per 100,000 potential risk events in population
occupationally exposed to pesticides.
14 14 15 14 14 Registrations
3 8 19 8 8 Registrations
164 200 235 200 200 Actions
16 17 Data Avail 18.0 18.0 %Acre-
2007 Treatments
<= 3.5 Incidents per
100,000
Percent reduction in concentrations of pesticides detected
in general population.
Percent reduction in moderate to severe incidents for six
acutely toxic agricultural pesticides with the highest
incident rate.
10 Bi-Annual % Reduction
10 Bi-Annual % Reduction
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-57
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Background: The baseline for registration of reduced risk pesticides, new chemicals, and new uses, is zero in 1996 (the year FQPA was enacted). Cumulative actuals
in FY 2006 for reduced risk pesticides are 172 registrations, 101 new chemicals (AI) and 3,541 new use actions. These performance measures are now
counted on an annual basis in order to better address PRIA requirements.
The baseline for reducing registration decision times for reduced risk chemicals is 32.5 months in 2002.
According to NHANES data for 1999-2002 the concentration of pesticides residues detected in blood samples from the general population are:
Dimethylphosphaste = 0.41 ug/L; Dimethylthiophosphate = 1.06 ug/L; Dimethyldithiophosphate = 0.07 ug/L; Diethylphosphate = 0.78 ug/L;
Diethylthiophosphate = 0.5 ug/L; Diethyldithiophosphate = 0.07 ug/L; and 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol = 1.9 ug/L. There were 1,385 incidents out of
39,850,000 potential risk events for those occupationally exposed to pesticides in 2003. The rates for moderate to severe incidents for exposure to
agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rates base on 1999 -2003 data were: diazinon, 51 incidents; malathion, 36 incidents; pyrethrins, 29
incidents; 2, 4-D, 27 incidents; carbofuran, 24 incidents; based on data from Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS), and
NIOSH's Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR).
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
In 2008 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 subsistance lifestyles of the Native Americans
In 2008 Reduce the average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered Species Bulletin.
In 2008 Reduce the percent of urban watersheds sampled that exceeds EPA aquatic life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos,
malathion).
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 subsistance lifestyles of the Native Americans
In 2007 Reduce the average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered Species Bulletin.
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 subsistance lifestyles of the Native Americans
In 2005 Ensure that through ongoing data reviews, pesticide active ingredients, and products that contain them are reviewed to assure adequate protection for
human health and the environment, taking into consideration exposure scenarios such as subsistance lifestyles of the Native Americans
Performance Measures
Product Reregistration
FY 2005
Target Actual
400 501
FY 2006
Target Actual
545 545
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
545
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
545
Unit
Actions
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS PPA-58 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Measures
Percent of urban watersheds that exceeds EPA aqu
FY 2005
Target Actual
atic life
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
25, 25, 30
Unit
% Watersheds
benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern.
Background: The baseline for REDs is completion of 612 REDs by 2008. A total of 7,358 product reregistrations were completed by 2006. Reregistration decision
time baseline is 30 months in 2002.
Based on 1992 - 2001 data, 40% of urban watersheds exceeded aquatic life benchmarks for diazinon, 37% for chlorpyrifos, and 30% of urban
watersheds exceeded aquatic life benchmarks malathion. Based on 1992 - 2001 data, 18% percent of agricultural watersheds exceeded aquatic life
benchmarks for azinphos-methyl and 18% of agricultural watersheds exceeded aquatic life benchmarks for chlorpyrifos.
In 2004, the average cost per Endangered Species Bulletin produced or updated was $4,000 and 100 hours.
Endocrine Disrupters
In 2008 Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program will continue its progress toward completing the validation of endocrine test methods.
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.
In 2005 Standardization and validation of screening assays
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Cumulative number of assays validated.
11/20 2/21 8/20 13/20 Assays
Background: 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.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-59
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Realize the Value from Pesticide Availability
In 2008 Maintain timeliness of S18 decisions.
In 2008 Number of acres using reduced risk pest management practices compared to the grant and/or contract funds expended on environmental stewardship.
In 2007 Maintain timeliness of S18 decisions.
In 2006 Maintain timeliness of S18 decisions.
In 2005 Maintain timeliness of S18 decisions.
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target
Maintain timeliness ofSIS decisions 45
Millions of dollars in termite structural damage avoided
42 45 48 45 45
900
Unit
Days
Million dollars
annually by ensuring safe and effective pesticides are
registered/re-registered and available for termite
treatment.
Billions of dollars in crop loss avoided by ensuring that
effective pesticides are available to address pest
infestations.
1.5
Billion dollars
loss avoided
Background: The Section 18's 2005 baseline is 45 days. EPA's FY 2006 response time for Section 18 decisions (emergency pesticide use exemptions for pest
infestations) was slightly higher than the target of 45 days because the program's focus was diverted to address Homeland Security and food security
concerns associated with soybean rust.
According to EPA and USDA data for the years 2000-2005, emergency exemptions issued by EPA resulted in $1.5 billion in avoided crop loss. In a
similar manner, based on U.S Census housing data, industry data, and academic studies on damage valuation, EPA calculates that in 2003 there were
$900 million in annual savings from structural damage avoided due to availability of registered termiticides. For 2005, funding of Strategic Agriculture
Initiative grants resulted in $2.63 per acre impacted.
Lead Gasoline Phase-Out
In 2008 Eliminate use of lead in gasoline in remaining countries that still use lead as an additive, affecting more than 700 million people.
In 2008 Increase access to low-sulfur fuels in developing countries.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-60
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Measures
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
Number of countries completing phase out of leaded
gasoline, (incremental)
Number of countries introdut
':ing low sulfur in fuels.
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
7
2
Unit
Countries
Countries
(incremental)
Background: As of June 2005, 122 countries have phased out the use of lead in gasoline. As of 2005, United States, Japan, Canada, and the European Community
have introduced low-sulfur fuels.
Exposure to Industrial / Commercial Chemicals
In 2008 Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority 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 Reduce exposure to and health effects from priority industrial / commercial chemicals
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures
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
elevated blood lead levels (>10ug/dl).
Target
29
38,700
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Data
Available
2009
Target
29
216,000
Actual
Data
Available
2009
Data
Available
2009
Target
Biannual
Data
199,000
Target
29
90,000
Unit
Percent
Children
Background: Baseline for percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that require less than 40 days of EPA effort to process is 54% in 2004.
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 37% in 1991-1994.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-61
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Data released by CDC from the National Health and Nutritional Evaluation Survey (NHANES) in May of 2005 estimated a population of 310,000
children aged 1-5 with lead poisoning (blood lead levels of 10 ug/dl or greater). EPA has incorporated into its Strategic Plan the federal government
goal to eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern by 2010.
Risks from Industrial / Commercial Chemicals
In 2008 Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with 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.
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Cumulative number of chemicals with proposed, interim, 125
and/or final values for Acute Exposure Guidelines Levels
(AEGL).
165 145 185 209 233 Total number
chemicals
Percent of chemicals or organisms introduced into
commerce that do not 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.
Reduction in the current year production-adjusted risk-
based score of releases and toxic transfers.
Percent reduction from prior year in total EPA cost per
chemical for which proposed AEGL value sets are
developed.
Percent change from prior year in cost savings due to
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS
TBD
TBD
100
100
100
100
100
100
Data 3
Available
2008
Data
Available
2008
2.5
34,160
(2)
100
100
10
2.5
34,160
(2)
6.7
Percent
% of HPV
Chemicals
Cumulative
Chemicals
%RSEI
relative risk
Cost savings
% cost savings
PPA-62
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
new chemical prescreening.
Background: In 2006, additional 23 chemicals with proposed, interim, or final AEGL Values were reported for the AEGL Program (annual count).
The baseline for percent of chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the
environment in 2004 and 2005 islOO%.
The baseline for HPV measure is zero chemicals in 1998. EPA screening of data obtained through the HPV Challenge Program is commencing in 2006;
actions to obtain additional information needed to assess risks will commence subsequently as chemicals are identified as priority concerns through the
screening process.
Baseline for the VCCEP Program is 0 for FY 2003.
Baseline for the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model Program is based on the cumulative reduction that was reported in 2002-2003 and is
6.6 percent.
Chemical Facility Risk Reduction
In 2008 Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases through facility risk reduction efforts and building community
infrastructures.
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 Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases through facility risk reduction efforts and building community
infrastructures.
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Number of risk management plan audits completed. 400 885 400 550 400 400 Audits
Background: 1,059 Risk Management Plan audits were completed between FY 2000 and FY 2003.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS PPA-63 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
OBJECTIVE: COMMUNITIES
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
U.S. - Mexico Border Water/Wastewater Infrastructure
In 2008
Sustain and restore the environmental health along the United States-Mexico Border through implementation of the "Border 2012" plan.
FY 2005
FY 2006
Performance Measures
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
Number of additional homes provided adequate safe
drinking water in the Mexican border area that lacked
access to wastewater sanitation in 2003.
Number of additional homes provided adequate
wastewater sanitation in the Mexican border area that
lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003.
2,500
15,000
More homes
More homes
Background: The US-Mexico border region extends more than 3,100 kilometers (2,000 miles) from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, and 62.5 miles on each
side of the international border. More than 11.8 million people reside along the border and this figure is expected to increase to 19.4 million by 2020.
Ninety percent of the population reside in the 14 impaired, interdependent sister cities. Rapid population growth in urban areas has resulted in
unplanned development, greater demand for land and energy, increased traffic congestion, increased waste generation, overburdened or unavailable
waste treatment and disposal facilities, and more frequent chemical emergencies. Rural areas suffer from exposure to airborne dust, pesticide use, and
inadequate water supply and treatment facilities. EPA, other US Federal agencies, and the Government of Mexico have partnered to address these
environmental problems.
Environmental Justice
In 2008 In FY 08, four communities with potential environmental justice concerns will achieve significant measurable environmental or public health
improvement through collaborative problem-solving strategies.
Performance Measures
Communities with Environmental Justice Concerns
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
4
Unit
Communities
Background: The Agency works to address issues affecting disproportionately exposed and under-represented populations from adverse health or environmental
effects. EPA identifies problem areas through: public comments received during the National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC)
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-64
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
meetings; reviewing Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) filed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in which environmental justice
(EJ) indicators occur; concern from communities about new or renewals of permits under RCRA, CWA, CAA, etc.; and complaints filed under Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act. EPA also works to address these issues through the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and by
awarding grants to communities for addressing environmental problems.
Reducing POPs
In 2008 Reduce mean maternal blood levels of chlordane in indigenous populations in the Arctic
In 2008 Reduce mean maternal blood levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in indigenous populations in the Arctic
FY 2005
FY 2006
Performance Measures
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
Mean maternal blood levels of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) (measured as Aroclor 1260) in indigenous
populations in the Arctic, (cumulative)
Mean maternal blood levels of chlordane (measured as
the metabolites oxychlordane and trans-nonachlor) in
indigenous populations in the Arctic, (cumulative)
6.3
1.3
6.15
1.25
ug/1
ug/1
Background: Data for these measures are not available annually because of the long biological residence of the selected congeners of about 3-5 years. With the
signing of the global POPs convention in May 2001 EPA will work on domestic implementing legislation (e.g., a FIFRA amendment) and projects to
support implementation by key developing countries (e.g., China). In FY2001 EPA worked with UNEP to identify regions (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africa,
Central America, Southeast Asia) which would benefit from such support from EPA, and we have started projects on the basis of available funding.
Whenever possible EPA will support projects, which also promote compliance with the global Prior Informed Consent (PIC) regime and the
international commitment to improve chemicals management capabilities, as set out in the Bahia Declaration from the Third Session of the
Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety in October 2000.
Mexico Border Outreach
In 2008 Cleanup waste sites in the United States-Mexico border region
In 2006 Develop air quality assessments and programs to improve air quality standards in border communities.
Performance Measures
Cleanup waste sites in the United States-Mexico border
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
1
Unit
Sites
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-65
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Measures
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
region, (incremental)
Background: In 2004, there are no border communities monitoring for pollutants that have not previously been monitored in their community. There are 17
monitoring stations along the US-Mexico Border (source: US-Mexico Border XXI Program: Progress Report 1996-2000). Monitoring for: carbon
monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, paniculate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter U.S. only, paniculate matter 10 micrometers
or less in diameter, total suspended paniculate matter Mexico only, lead.
Revitalize Properties
In 2008 Assess, clean up and promote the reuse of Brownfields properties, and leverage jobs and cleanup/redevelopment funding.
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 Leverage jobs by assessing, promoting the cleanup and reuse of Brownfields properties.
Performance Measures
Brownfield properties assessed.
Acres of Brownfields properties made ready for reuse.
Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities.
Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds
leveraged at Brownfields sites.
FY 2005 FY 2006
Target Actual Target Actual
1,000 1,381.00 1,000 Data
Available
2007
5,000 6,128.00 5,000 Data
Available
2007
0.9 1.00 1.0 Data
Available
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
1,000
5,000
0.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
1,000
225
5,000
0.9
Unit
Assessments
Acres
Jobs
Billion dollars
funds
2007
Background: By the end of FY 2005, the Brownfields program assessed 1,381 properties, leveraged 6,128 jobs, and leveraged $1.0B in cleanup and redevelopment
funding.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-66
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Pacific Island Territories
In 2008 Sustain and restore the environmental health of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI).
Performance Measures
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
% of population in each of U.S. Pacific Island Territories
served by CWS will receive drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based drinking water standards
throughout the year.
The sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island
Territories will comply with permit limits for biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS).
Beaches in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories
monitored under the Beach Safety Program will be open
and safe for swimming during the beach season.
72
67
70
% Population
% Time
% Days
Background: In 2005, 95% of the population in American Samoa, 10% in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and 80% of Guam served by
CWS received drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards. The sewage treatment plants in the Pacific Island Territories compiled
59% of the time with BOD & TSS permit limits. Beaches were open and safe 64% of the beach season in American Samoa, 97% in the CNMI & 76%
in Guam.
OBJECTIVE: RESTORE AND PROTECT CRITICAL ECOSYSTEMS
Protect, sustain, and restore the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems.
Protecting and Enhancing Estuaries
In 2008 Working with partners, protect or restore additional (i.e., measuring from 2008 forward) acres of habitat within the study area for the 28 estuaries that
are part of the National Estuary Program.
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).
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-67
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2005 Working with NEP partners, protect or restore an additional 25,000 acres of habitat within the study areas for the 28 estuaries that are part of the
National Estuary Program (NEP).
FY 2005
FY 2006
Performance Measures
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
75,000
50,000
Acres
Acres protected or restored in NEP study areas. 25,000 103,959 25,000 140,033
Background: 2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 2002.
Gulf of Mexico
In 2008 Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico.
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico.
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico.
FY 2005 FY 2006
Target Actual Target Actual
In 2007
In 2006
In 2005
Performance Measures
FY 2007 FY 2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Target
Target
Unit
Improve overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of
Mexico 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, as measured by the five year running
average
Percentage of water and habitat quality restored to meet
water quality standards in impaired segments in 13
priority coastal areas.
Acres of important coastal and marine habitats restored,
enhanced or protected.
0.1
12700
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
18,200
Scale
12,700 14,128 14,944 14,128 13,500 Square miles
64 % Impaired
segments
Acres
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-68
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Background: In 2004, the Gulf of Mexico rating of fair/poor was 2.4 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 II indicators: water quality index, sediment quality index,
benthic index, coastal habitat index, and fish tissue contaminants.
The hypoxia running average size for 1996-2000 = 14,128 km2. The 2002-2006 running average size = 14,944 km2.
In 2002, 812 impaired segments identified in Section 303(d) listings. In 2005, 16,000 acres restored, enhanced, or protected; Gulf of Mexico coastal
wetlands habitats include 3,769,370 acres.
Great Lakes Implementation Actions
In 2008
In 2007
In 2006
In 2005
Performance Measures
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved.
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved.
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved.
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved by at least 1 point
FY 2005 FY 2006
Target Actual Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so 21.9
that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is
improved (cumulative)
Cubic yards (in millions) of contaminated sediment 3.7
remediated in the Great Lakes, (cumulative from 1997)
Average concentrations ofPCBs in whole lake trout and 6.2
walleye samples will decline.
Average concentrations of toxic chemicals in the air in 7.1
the Great Lakes basin will decline
Restore and delist Areas of Concern (AOCs) within the 0
Great Lakes basin (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
21.9
3.7
21
3.2
21.1
4.1
21
21
5.0
Data
Available
2007
8
1
5
7
4
5
7
2
Scale
Million cubic
yards per
meter
% Annual
decrease
% Annual
decrease
Areas of
concern
Background: Great Lakes rating of 20 9 reported in 2003, based on most current data available, generally from 2001) 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, (ii) 2.1 million
cubic yards of contaminated sediments were remediated from 1997 through 2001 of the 40 million requiring remediation, (iii) On average, total PCB
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-69
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
concentrations in whole Great Lakes top predator fish have recently declined 5 percent annually - average concentrations at Lake sites from 2002 were:
L Superior-9ug/g; L Michigan- 1.6ug/g; L Huron- .8ug/g L Erie- 1.8ug/g; and L Ontario- 1.2ug/g. 9iv) Average concentrations of toxic chemicals in the
air (PCBs) from 2002 were; L Superior- 60 pg/m2; L Michigan- 87 pg/m2; L Huron-19 pg/m2; L Erie- 183 pg/m2; and L Ontario- 36 pg/m2. (v) In
2002, no Areas of Concern had been delisted.
Wetland and River Corridor Projects
In 2008 Working with partners, achieve a net increase in wetlands acres with additional focus on assessment of wetland condition.
In 2007 Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetlands.
In 2006 Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetlands.
In 2005 Working with partners, achieve no net loss of wetlands.
Performance Measures
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
Working with partners, achieve a net increase in wetlands
FY
Target
No Net
Loss
100,000
2005
Actual
Data
Available
2011
Data
Available
2011
FY
Target
No Net
Loss
200,000
2006
Actual
Data
Available
2011
Data
Available
2011
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
No Net
Loss
100,000
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
No Net
Loss
100,000
Unit
Acres
Acres per year
Background: Annual net wetland loss of an estimated 58,500 acres as measured by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and reported in Status and Tends of Wetlands
in the Conterminous United States, 1986-1997. The United States achieved a net cumulative increase of 32,000 acres per year of wetlands over a 6-year
period, from 1998 through 2004, as measured by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and reported in Status and trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous
United States, 1998 to 2004. (Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of
the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 112 pp.)
Chesapeake Bay Habitat
In 2008 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that the overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is improved.
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)
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS PPA-70 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
100,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation, (cumulative)
In 2006 Reduce nitrogen loads by 80 million pounds per year; phosphorus loads by 9.0 million pounds per year, and sediment loads by 1.16 million tons per
year from entering the Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels
In 2005 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is improved enough so that there are
90,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation, (cumulative)
In 2005 Reduce nitrogen loads by 74 million pounds per year; phosphorus loads by 8.7 million pounds per year, and sediment loads by 1.06 million tons per
year from entering the Chesapeake Bay, from 1985 levels
Performance Measures
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
Reduction, from 1985 levels, of nitrogen (M/lbs),
phosphorus (M/lbs), and sediment loads (tons) entering
Chesapeake Bay. (cumulative)
Percent of point source nitrogen reduction goal of 49.9
million pounds achieved.
Percent of point source phosphorus reduction goal of 6.16
million pounds achieved.
Percent of forest buffer planting goal of 10,000 miles
achieved.
Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SA V) present in
the Chesapeake Bay. (cumulative)
Percent of goal achieved for implementation of nitrogen
reduction practices (expressed as progress meeting the
nitrogen reduction goal of 162.5 million pounds).
Percent of goal achieved for implementation of
phosphorus reduction practices (expressed as progress
meeting the phosphorus reduction goal of 14.36 million
pounds).
74/8.7/1.06 67/8.4/0.9 74/8.7/1.1 72.3/8.7/1 80/9.0/1.16
% Reductions
Greater
Reduction
Greater
Reduction
40
89,659
46
60.6
61
80
38
72,942
41
58
65
82
46
90,000
44
61
65
82
46
78,259
44
61
70
84
53
90,000
47
64
74
85
60
50
% Goal
% Goal
% Goal
Acres
% Reduction
66
% Reduction
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-71
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Measures
Percent of goal achieved for implementatior
FY 2005
Target Actual
i of sediment 63 54
FY 2006
Target Actual
57 57
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
61
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
64
Unit
% Reduction
reduction practices (expressed as progress meeting the
sediment reduction goal of 1.69 million pounds).
Background: In 1984, there were 38,230 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay. In 2002, baseline for nitrogen load reductions was 53 million
pounds per year; phosphorus load reductions was 8.0 million pounds per year; and sediment load reductions was 0.8 million tons per year. *Fiscal year
data in this table reflects prior calendar year performance data.
In 2006, there were 32.68 million Ibs of point source nitrogen reduced, 65% towards the goal. There were 5.07 million Ibs of point source phosphorus
reduced, 82% towards the goal. Four thousand six hundred six miles of forest buffer were planted, 46% towards the goal.
Long Island Sound
In 2008 Prevent water pollution, improve water quality, protect aquatic systems, and restore the habitat of Long Island Sound by working through the Long
Island Sound Management Study Conference partnership.
Performance Measures
Reduce point source nitrogen discharges to LIS.
Acres of coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands, dunes,
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
8,303
50
Unit
Ibs/day
Acres
riparian buffers, and freshwater wetlands restored or
protected.
Additional miles of river and stream corridor reopened to 8.3 Miles
anadramous fish passage through removal of dams and
barriers or installation of by-pass structures such as
fishways.
Background: In 2000, TMDL baseline is 213,151 pounds/day. In 2005, 562 acres restored (cumulative) and 150 acres protected (cumulative). Eighty-one miles of
river and stream corridor re-opened.
South Florida Ecosystem
In 2008 Protect and maintain the South Florida Ecosystem, including the Everglades and coral reef ecosystems.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS PPA-72 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Measures
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
Mean percent stony coral cover in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and in the coastal
waters ofDade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties,
Florida, working with all stakeholders.
Maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and
coastal waters of the FKNMS.
Total phosphorous in Everglades surface waters.
6.7/5.9 Mean % area
Maintain Water quality
Maintain Parts per
billion
Background: In 2005, the mean percent of stony coral cover is 6.7% in FKNMS and 5.9% in Southeast Florida. The average annual geometric mean phosphorus
concentrations were 5 ppb in the Everglades National Park, 10 ppb in Water Conservation 3 A, 13 ppb in the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and
18 ppb in Water Conservation Area 2A; annual average flow-weighted from total phosphorus discharges from storm water treatment areas ranged from
13 ppb for area 3/4 and 98 ppb for area 1W.
Columbia River Basin
In 2008 Prevent water pollution, and improve and protect water quality and ecosystems in the Columbia River Basin to reduce risks to human health and the
environment.
Performance Measures
Acres of wetland habitat and acres of upland habitat
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
3,000
Unit
Acres
protected, enhanced, or restored in the Columbia River
Basin.
Background: In 2005, 96,770 acres of wetland and upland habitat available for protection, enhancement or restoration.
OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
Through 2011, identify and synthesize the best available scientific information, models, methods, and analyses to support Agency guidance
and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems. Focus research on pesticides and chemical toxicology;
global change; and comprehensive, cross-cutting studies of human, community, and ecosystem health.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-73
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Research
Research on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
In 2008 Increased use of endocrine disrupters research program products
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
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.
In 2005 Increased use of endocrine disrupters research program products
Performance Measures
Improved protocols for screening and testing (Research)
Effects and exposure milestones met (Research)
Assessment milestones met (Research)
Risk management milestones met (Research)
FY
Target
2
5
0
5
2005
Actual
2
5
0
5
FY
Target
1
9
1
3
2006
Actual
1
9
0
3
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
6
4
0
3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
1
3
0
2
Unit
Reports
Reports
Reports
Reports
Background: In 2008, the program plans to accomplish its goals of completing 1) one report relating to improved protocols for screening and testing; 2) three reports
related to effects and exposure; and 3) two reports related to risk management. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of
providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and ecosystems, with regard to chemical
toxicology.
Homeland Security Research
In 2008 Enhance public health and safety and mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical, biological, or radiological materials
into the environment.
In 2007 Enhance public health and safety and mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical, biological, or radiological materials
into the environment.
In 2006 Provide methods, guidance documents, technologies and tools to first responders and decision-makers to enhance safety and to mitigate adverse effects
of the purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical or biological materials into the environment.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-74
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
In 2005
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
By FY 2005, provide tools, case studies, and technical guidance so that, by FY 2006, first responders and decision-makers will have the methods,
guidance documents, and technologies to enhance safety and to mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical or
biological materials into the environment.
Performance Measures
Percentage of planned outputs delivered to support
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
100
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
100
Unit
Percent
efficient and effective clean-ups and safe disposal of
decontamination wastes. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered to support water
security initiatives. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered to support risk
assessors and decision-makers in the rapid assessment of
risk and the determination of cleanup goals and
procedures following contamination. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of
establishment of the environmental National Laboratory
Response Network (Research)
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Percent
Percent
Background: EPA's homeland security research provides appropriate, effective, and rapid risk assessment guidelines and technologies to help decision-makers
prepare for, detect, contain, and decontaminate building and water treatment systems against which chemical and/or biological attacks have been
directed. The Agency intends to expand the state of the knowledge of potential threats, as well as its response capabilities, by assembling and evaluating
private sector tools and capabilities so that preferred response approaches can be identified, promoted, and evaluated for future use by first responders,
decision-makers, and the public. This APG will provide guidance documents for the restoration of buildings and water systems and the establishment of
remediation goals. These products will enable first responders to better deal with threats to the public and the environment posed by the intentional
release of toxic or infectious materials.
Human Health Research
In 2008 Increased use of human health research products
In 2007 Increased use of human health research products
In 2006 Increased use of human health research products
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-75
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
In 2005
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
By FY 2005, provide risk assessors and managers with methods and tools for measuring exposure and effects in children, and characterizing and
reducing risks to children from environmental agents in schools so that, by 2014, EPA will be able to demonstrate why some groups of people, defined
by life stage, genetic factors, and health status, are more vulnerable than others to adverse effects from exposure to environmental agents.
Performance Measures
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of
public health outcomes long-term goal. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of
mechanistic data long-term goal. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of
aggregate and cumulative risk long-term goal. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the
FY
Target
100
100
100
100
2005
Actual
100
100
86
100
FY
Target
100
100
100
100
2006
Actual
100
92
100
100
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
100
100
100
100
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
100
100
100
100
Unit
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
susceptible subpopulations long-term goal. (Research)
Background: In FY 2008, the program plans to accomplish its goals of completing 100% of its planned outputs toward its four long-term goals. In achieving these
targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to human health.
Global Change Research
In 2008 Increased use of global change research products
In 2007 Increased use of global change research products
In 2006 Increased use of global change research products
In 2005 Increased use of global change research products
Performance Measures
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Percentage of planned outputs delivered. (Research) Baseline 100 Percent
Percent progress toward completioi
i of framework linking 45 47.5 60 65 75 85 Percent
global change to air quality. (Research)
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-76
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Background:
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In FY 2008, the program plans to accomplish its goal of completing and delivering 100% of its planned outputs. In achieving these targets, the program
will contribute to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people, communities, and
ecosystems, with regard to global change.
Human Health Risk Assessment
In 2008 Increased use of human health risk assessment program products
In 2007 Increased use of human health risk assessment program products
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.
In 2005 Through FY2005, initiate or submit to external review 28 human health assessments and complete 12 human health assessments through the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS). This information will improve EPA's and other decisionmakers' ability to protect the public from harmful chemical
exposure
FY 2005
FY 2006
Performance Measures
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Air N/A 100 N/A 100
Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents.
(Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of N/A 80 N/A 100
HHRA health assessments. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of N/A 44 N/A 81
HHRA Technical Support Documents. (Research)
90
90
90
90
90
90
Percent
Percent
Percent
Background: In FY 2008 the program plans to complete 90% of its planned outputs in support of HHRA health assessments, 90% of its planned outputs in support of
Air Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents, and 90% of its planned outputs in support of HHRA Technical Support Documents. In achieving
these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
communities, and ecosystems.
Ecosystems Research
In 2008 Increased use of ecosystems research products
In 2007 Increased use of ecosystems research products
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS PPA-77 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2006 Increased use of ecosystems research products
In 2005 By FY 2005, provide technical guidance for implementing and evaluating projects to restore riparian zones, which are critical landscape components for
the restoration of aquatic ecosystems and water quality, so that, by 2010, watershed managers have state-of-the-science field-evaluated tools, technical
guidance, and decision-support systems for selecting, implementing, and evaluating cost-effective and environmentally-sound approaches to restore
ecosystem services as part of watershed management
FY 2005
Performance Measures
Number of states using a common r
Target
nonitoring design and 20
Actual
22
FY 2006
Target
25
Actual
25
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
30
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
35
Unit
States
appropriate indicators to determine the status and trends
of ecological resources and the effectiveness of national
programs and policies. (Research)
Background: By FY 2008, the program expects that 35 states will use a common monitoring design and appropriate indicators to determine the status and trends of
ecological resources and the effectiveness of national programs and policies. This will represent an increase of 13 states since FY 2005. In achieving its
FY 2008 targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to the health of
ecosystems.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITITES AND ECOSYSTEMS
PPA-78
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Improve environmental performance through ensuring compliance with environmental requirements by enforcing environmental statutes, 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 and long-term sustainable outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION THROUGH IMPROVED COMPLIANCE
By 2011, maximize compliance to protect human health and the environment through enforcement and other compliance assurance activities
by achieving a 5 percent increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated by regulated entities, including those in Indian
country.
Monitoring and Enforcement
In 2008 Through monitoring and enforcement actions, EPA will increase complying actions, pollutant reduction or treatment, and improve environmental
management practices.
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 will increase complying actions, pollutant reduction or treatment, and improve environmental
management practices.
FY 2005
FY 2006
Performance Measures
FY 2007 FY 2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Target Actual Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or 300
eliminated as a result of concluded enforcement actions.
(civil enf)
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that 30
pollution be reduced, treated or eliminated (civil enf.)
1,100 450 890 500
28.8 30 Data 30
Available
2008
550 Million
Pounds
30 Percentage
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring
60
72.5
65
82
70
70
Percentage
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
PPA-79
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
implementation of improved environmental management
practices.
Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions 10 19 25 16 30 30 Percentage
as a result ofon-site compliance inspections and
evaluations.
Dollars invested in improved environmental performance 4.0 10.0 4.1 5.0 4.2 4.3 Billion Dollars
or improved environmental management practices as a
result of concluded enforcement actions (i.e., injunctive
relief and SEPs)
Background: The FY 2004-2006 rolling average baseline for pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated is 997,000,000 pounds of pollutants. The FY 2006
baseline for the percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that pollutants be reduced, treated, or eliminated is the FY2005 result which is
28.8%. The reason for using the FY2005 result as the FY2006 baseline is due to the data lag in the FY2006 result. The FY2006 baseline for the
percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring implementation of improved environmental management practices is 82%. The FY 2006 baseline
for the percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result ofon-site compliance inspections and evaluations is 16%. The FY 2004-
2006 rolling average baseline for dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved environmental management practices is
$6,600,000,000.
With the adoption of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, pollution reductions will move from an enforcement category to a regulatory category; therefore, the
enforcement targets should not be expected to increase, although overall pollution reduction is certain to increase.
Compliance Incentives
In 2008 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 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 environmental
management practices.
In 2005 Through serf-disclosure policies, EPA will increase the percentage of audits or other actions reducing pollutants or improving BMP.
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PPA-80 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Measures
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated, as a
result of audit agreements.
FY 2005
Target Actual
0.25 1.9
FY 2006
Target Actual
0.4 0.05
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
0.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
0.4
Unit
Million
Pounds
Background: The FY 2006 baseline for pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audit agreements is 0.05 million pounds of pollutants.
Compliance Assistance
In 2008 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 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 will increase the understanding of regulated entities, improve environmental management practices, and reduce
pollutants.
Performance Measures
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
50 51 50 74 50 50 Percentage
compliance assistance from EPA reporting that they
improved EMP 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.
25
13
15
28
15
15
Percentage
Background: The FY 2006 baseline for the percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA reporting that they improved EMP as a
result of EPA assistance is 74%. The FY 2006 baseline for the percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA
reporting that they reduced, treated, or eliminated pollution as a result of EPA compliance assistance is 28%.
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
PPA-81
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH POLLUTION PREVENTION AND INNOVATION
Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and the Adoption of other Stewardship Practices that Lead to Sustainable
Outcomes. By 2011, enhance public health and environmental protection and increase conservation of natural resources by promoting
pollution prevention and the adoption of other stewardship practices by companies, communities, governmental organizations, and
individuals.
Reducing PBTs in Hazardous Waste Streams
In 2008 Reduce pollution in business operations.
In 2007 Reduce pollution in business operations.
In 2006 Reduce pollution in business operations.
Performance Measures
Number of pounds (in millions) of pr
FY 2005
Target Actual
iority chemicals
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
0.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
1.0
Unit
Pounds
reduced, as measured by National Partnership for
Environmental Priorities members.
Background: The new performance measure reflects the fact that the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) has quadrupled its members and now
has over 100 partners, who have removed more than one million pounds of priority chemicals from the environment. As of August 2006, the NPEP
program had also obtained industry commitments for 2.1 million pounds of priority chemical reductions through the year 2011. Reductions will be
achieved primarily through source reduction made possible by safer chemical substitutes.
Innovation Activities
In 2008 75% of innovation projects completed under the State Innovation Grant (SIG) Program and through other piloting mechanisms will achieve, on average,
an 8% or greater improvement in environmental results from a project initiation baseline measure for the sectors and facilities involved (e.g., reductions
in air or water discharges, improvements in ambient water or air quality, or improvements in compliance rates), or a 5% or greater improvement in cost-
effectiveness and efficiency.
In 2008 Performance Track facilities collectively will meet 3 of the 5 annual performance improvement targets for reducing, on a normalized basis, water use,
hazardous materials use, production of greenhouse gases, toxic discharges to water and combined NOx, SOx, VOC and PM emissions.
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
PPA-82
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 achieve an annual reduction of: 600 million gallons in water use; 2.5 million MMBTUs in energy use;
15,000 tons of solid waste; 20,000 tons materials reduced; 6,000 tons of air releases; and 10,000 tons in water discharges, compared with 2001 results.
In 2005 In 2005 Performance Track members collectively will achieve an annual reduction of 600 million gallons in water use; 2.5 million MMBTUs in energy
use; 15,000 tons of solid waste; 6,000 tons of air releases; 10,000 tons in water discharges; and 15,000 tons of materials compared with 2001 results.
Performance Measures
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
Unit
Media
Reduction
3,900,000,000 Gallons
10,000 Tons
Reduce 3.7 billion gallons of water use; 16.3 million 4
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 water use at Performance Track facilities.
Reduce hazardous materials use at Performance Track
facilities.
Reduce production of greenhouse gases at Performance
Track facilities.
Reduce toxic releases to water at Performance Track
facilities.
Reduce combined NOx, SOx, VOC and PM emissions at
Performance Track facilities.
75% of innovation projects completed under the State
Innovation Grants program will achieve, on average, 8%
or greater improvement in envtl results for sectors and
facilities involved, or 5% or greater improvement in cost-
effectiveness & efficiency.
Background: For Performance Track, the baseline year is 2001 for FY 2005, 2006, and 2007. Performance will be measured against the 2001 baseline annual
reduction of 475 M gallons of water conserved, 0.24 million MMBTUs of energy conserved, 150,000 tons of solid waste reduced, 1,113 tons of air
emissions reduced, 6,870 tons of water discharged, and -2,154 tons of materials reduced. For FY 2008, the baseline year is 2005. The 2005 baseline
175,000
220
4,000
75
MTCO2E
Tons
Tons
Percentage
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
PPA-83
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
annual normalized reductions are:, 3,387,333,545 gallons of water reduced, 8,794 tons of hazardous materials reduced, 151,129 MTCO2Es of
greenhouse gas emissions reduced, 186 tons of toxic discharges to water reduced, and 3,533 tons of NOx, SOx, VOCs and PM emissions reduced.
EPA's State Innovation Grant program promotes the testing of innovative approaches in State environmental permitting programs. Individual projects
are designed to test innovation that improves compliance rates, often within an entire business sector or across an entire permitting program, or
improves the efficiency of permitting programs for either the regulated sector or the state environmental agency. Because each grant-supported project
is unique, results can only be reported on a project-by project basis. EPA does not report program-wide results (e.g., total tons of air or water pollutants
removed or prevented in a year) because not every project selected in a competition year focuses on a single environmental medium or pollutant.
Rather, the EPA-funded projects help states test approaches that improve results, often in ways that address multi-media concerns. Similarly, these
projects are demonstrations, or pilot tests of new approaches and the projects take 2-4 years to complete. Therefore, results for individual projects are
reported at the end of each project. Results are usually described in terms such as an improvement in overall compliance rates at the end of a project
above a baseline condition measured at the beginning of the project.
Reduction of Industrial / Commercial Chemicals
In 2008 Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and improve environmental stewardship practices.
In 2007 Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and municipal solid wastes.
In 2005 Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and improve environmental stewardship practices.
Performance Measures
BTUs of energy reduced, conserved or o,
FY 2005
Target Actual
ffset by Pollution
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Pres Bud
Target
1,106,800
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Target
1,217,462
Unit
BTUs
Prevention (P2) program participants.
Gallons of water reduced by P2 program participants.
Business, institutional and government costs reduced by
P2 program participants.
Pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program
participants.
1,790.1
44.3
414
1,640.4
45.9
429.4
Million
Gallons
Million
Dollars
Million
Pounds
Background: The baseline for the TRI non-recycled wastes measure is the amount of non-recycled wastes in 2001 reported FY2003. The baseline for eco-friendly
detergents is 0 formulations in 1997. The baseline for the alternative feed stocks / processes measure is zero in 2000. The baseline for the quantity of
hazardous chemicals / solvents measures is zero pounds in the year 2000. The baseline for the hospitals measure is zero in FY2001. The baseline
reference point for reductions of pollution and conservation of BTUs and water is zero for 2003. The baseline for money saved will be 2003. The
baseline for reduction in CO2 will be zero for 1996. The baseline for the Clean and Green Index is 2001 levels. The baseline for chemical releases is
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
PPA-84
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
2001 level. The baseline for chemical production related wastes is 2001 level. Note: Several output measures were changed to internal-only reporting
status in 2005. Annual Performance measures are under development for EPA's Environmentally Preferable Purchasing program for the FY2006
Annual Performance Plan.
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN INDIAN COUNTRY
Protect human health and the environment on tribal lands by assisting federally-recognized tribes to: build environmental management
capacity; assess environmental conditions and measure results; and implement environmental programs in Indian country.
Tribal Environmental Baseline/Environmental Priority
In 2008 Protect human health and the environment on tribal lands by assisting federally recognized tribes to: build environmental capacity; assess
environmental conditions and measure results; and implement environmental programs in Indian country.
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 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.
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Percent of tribes with EPA-approved multimedia
workplans.
Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated
programs (cumulative).
Percent of Tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and
39
44
25.0
33
47
29.0
18
5
20.0
33
42
30.8
42
49
31.0
45
50
31.0
% Tribes
% Tribes
% Tribes
assessment occuring.
Background: There are 572 tribal entities that are eligible for GAP program funding. These entities are the ones for which environmental assessments of their lands
will be conducted.
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PPA-85 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Enabling Support Programs
NPM: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Energy Consumption Reduction
In 2008 As required by the Executive Order: Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management, EPA will achieve a 8% reduction in
energy consumption from the Agency's 2003 baseline.
In 2007 As required by the Executive Order: Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management, EPA will achieve a 5% 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.
FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual
Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption. 2258 Percent
Background: On January 24, 2007, the President signed Executive Order: Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management, requiring all
Federal Agencies to reduce its Green House Gas intensity and its energy use by 3% annually through FY 2015. For the Agency's 29 reporting facilities,
the FY 2003 energy consumption of British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot is 346,518 BTUs per square foot.
Human Capital
In 2008 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.
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.
NPM: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PPA-86 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Measures
FY 2005
Target Actual
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Percent increase in the number ofnon-SES managers and
supervisors at the targeted proficiency level
(intermediate) for "Interpersonal Skills and Oral
Communication ".
Percent increase in the number ofnon-SES managers and
supervisors at the targeted proficiency level (advanced)
for "Interpersonal Skills and Oral Communication ".
Average time to hire non-SES positions from date
vacancy closes to date offer is extended, expressed in
working days.
For SES positions, the average time from date vacancy
closes to date offer is extended, expressed in working
days.
25
15
45
90
10
15
45
73
Percent
Percent
Days
Days
Background: Human capital performance measures and targets were selected from EPA's President's Management Agenda, Proud-To-Be, Human Capital annual
goal setting and measurement program and from EPA's human capital accountability system.
NPM: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
PPA-87
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
NPM: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Information Exchange Network
In 2008 Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound environmental decision-making through the Central Data Exchange
(CDX).
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 Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound environmental decision-making through the Central Data Exchange
(CDX).
Performance Measures
FY 2005 FY 2006
Target Actual Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Number of major EPA environmental systems that use the 12 22 29
CDX electronic requirements enabling faster receipt,
processing, and quality checking of data.
States, tribes and territories will be able to exchange data 40 40
with CDX through nodes in real time, using standards
and automated data-quality checking.
Number of users from states, tribes, laboratories, and 20,000 45,000 47,000
others that choose CDX to report environmental data
electronically to EPA.
36
Target Not Target Not Target Not
Established Established Established
62,000
55,000
43
55
70,000
Systems
Users
Users
Background: The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001.
Information Security
In 2008 OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for 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.
NPM: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
PPA-8
Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In 2005 OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual
Percent of Federal Information Security Management Act 75 90 100 100 100 100 Percent
reportable systems that are certified and accredited.
Background: In FY 2002, the Agency started planning an effort to expand and strengthen its information security infrastructure.
NPM: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION PPA-89 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
NPM: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fraud Detection and Deterrence
In 2008 In 2008, the OIG will improve public confidence and integrity in EPA program operations by detecting and preventing fraud, abuse and breaches of
security.
In 2007 In 2007, OIG will improve public confidence and integrity in EPA program operations by detecting and preventing fraud, abuse and breaches of
security.
In 2006 In 2006, the OIG will improve public confidence and integrity in EPA program operations by detecting and preventing fraud, abuse and breaches of
security.
In 2005 In 2005, the OIG will improve Agency business and operations by identifying 800 recommendations, potential savings and recoveries equal to 150
percent of the annual investment in the OIG, 220 actions for better business operations, and 80 criminal, civil, or administrative actions reducing risk or
loss of integrity.
FY2005 FY2006 FY 2007 FY2008
Pres Bud Pres Bud
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual
Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention 80 125 80 121 80 70 Actions
actions.
Background: In FY 2005, the OIG established a baseline of 83 criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions. Revised FY 2008 performance targets are
reduced proportionally to the OIG FY 2008 Congressional Justification Budget level.
Audit and Advisory Services
In 2008 In 2008, the OIG will contribute to human health and environmental quality through audits, evaluations, advisory services, inspections, and
investigations for improved Agency business practices, accountability, and performance.
In 2007 In 2007, the OIG will contribute to human health and environmental quality through audits, evaluations, advisory services, inspections, and
investigations for improved Agency business practices, accountability, and performance.
In 2006 In 2006, the OIG will contribute to human health and environmental quality through audits, evaluations, advisory services, inspections, and
investigations for improved Agency business practices, accountability, and performance.
In 2005 In 2005, the OIG will contribute to improved environmental quality and human health by identifying 95 environmental recommendations, best practices,
risks, or opportunities for improvement; contributing to the reduction or elimination of 23 environmental or infrastructure security risks; and 45 actions
influencing environmental improvements or program changes.
NPM: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL PPA-90 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Performance Measures
Environmental and business actions taken for improved
performance or risk reduction.
Environmental and business recommendations or risks
identified for corrective action.
Return on the annual dollar investment, as a percentage of
FY
Target
288
895
150
2005
Actual
794
1,231
285
FY
Target
303
925
150
2006
Actual
407
1,024
1,100
FY 2007
Pres Bud
318
955
150
FY 2008
Pres Bud
291
805
100
Actions
Recommendations
Percentage
the OIG budget, from audits and investigations.
Background: In FY 2005, the OIG established a revised baseline of 564 environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction; 885
environmental and business risks or recommendations identified for corrective action; and 150% in potential dollar return on investment as a percentage
of OIG budget, from savings, questioned costs, fines, recoveries, and settlements. The baselines increased because the OIG began including the non-
monetary results of "Single Audits" and audits performed for the OIG in its targets and results by acknowledging the increasing number and significance
of actionable recommendations in these audits to improve the management of assistance agreements. Revised FY 2008 performance targets are reduced
proportionally to the OIG FY 2008 Congressional Justification Budget level.
NPM: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL PPA-91 Measures that are not currently used for the Office of
Management and Budget's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) assessments appear in italics.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2008 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 29
Major Management Challenges 34
EPA User Fee Program 50
Working Capital Fund 53
Acronyms for Statutory Authorities 54
STAG Categorical Program Grants - Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses 59
Program Projects by Appropriation 69
Long Term Initiatives 82
Expected Benefits of the President's E-Government Initiatives 85
Discontinued Programs 94
Research: Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) 95
Research SITE Program 97
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training 98
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements 99
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL 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 2008 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
Development and Co-operation (OECD), the North American Commission for Environmental
Appendix-2
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Cooperation (CEC), the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and our colleagues in
Canada, Mexico, Europe, and Japan. EPA is working with DOE and USTR under the CEC to
promote renewable energy markets in North America.
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
for emergency and critical use exemptions of methyl bromide. EPA is providing input to USDA
Appendix-3
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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.
This coordination is evident in work recently completed by an interagency task force, including
representatives from the Department of State, EPA, DOE, USDA, DOT, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Department of Commerce, USGCRP, NOAA, NASA, and the DoD, to
Appendix-4
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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.
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.
EPA coordinates its air quality research with other Federal agencies through the Subcommittee
on Air Quality Research1 of the NSTC Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR). The Agency and NIEHS co-chaired the subcommittee's Particulate Matter Research
Coordination Working Group, which produced a strategic plan2 for Federal research on the
health and environmental effects, exposures, atmospheric processes, source characterization and
control of fine airborne particulate matter. The Agency is also a charter member of NARSTO,3
an international public-private partnership established in 1995 to improve management of air
quality across North America. EPA coordinates specific research projects with other Federal
agencies where appropriate and supports air-related research at universities and nonprofit
organizations through its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program.
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
1 For more information, see .
2 For more information, see .
3 For more information, see .
Appendix-5
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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.
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.
Appendix-6
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
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 USGS 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
Appendix-7
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 DOT on mining issues.
Joint Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations
The Agency is working closely with the USDA to implement the Unified National Strategy for
Animal Feeding Operations finalized on March 9, 1999. The Strategy sets forth a framework of
actions that USDA and EPA will take to minimize water quality and public health impacts from
improperly managed animal wastes in a manner designed to preserve and enhance the long-term
sustainability of livestock production. EPA's recent revisions to the CAFO Regulations (effluent
guidelines and NPDES permit regulations) will be a key element of EPA and USDA's plan to
address water pollution from CAFOs. EPA and USDA senior management meet routinely to
ensure effective coordination across the two agencies.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Representatives from EPA's SRF program, 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.
Appendix-8
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Nonpoint Sources
EPA will continue to work closely with its Federal partners to achieve our goals for reducing
pollutant discharges from nonpoint sources, including reduction targets for sediments, nitrogen
and phosphorous. Most significantly, EPA will continue to work with the USDA, which has a
key role in reducing sediment loadings through its continued implementation of the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and other
conservation programs. USDA also plays a major role in reducing nutrient discharges through
these same programs and through activities related to the AFO Strategy. EPA will also continue
to work closely with the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 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, USDA, 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.
Appendix-9
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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. 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.
EPA is also working with other agencies (FDA, USGS, USDA, NOOA, CDC) on new
contaminants of concern in the environment. EPA and others are gathering information on the
occurrence, health and ecological effects, and is developing techniques to measure these
emerging contaminants in water, fish tissue and biosolids. These emerging contaminants include
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs),
polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants (PBDEs), perfluorooctanoate (PFOA),
nanomaterials, and prions. Data gaps are being identified for further research into whether there
is a link between specific contaminants and adverse impacts to humans or aquatic organisms.
The issue of eutrophication, hypoxia, and harmful algal blooms (HABs) is a priority with the
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). EPA is working closely with
NOAA on the issue of nutrients and risks posed by HABs. The 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.
Appendix-10
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 3-Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective: Preserve Land
Pollution prevention activities entail coordination with other Federal departments and agencies.
EPA coordinates with the General Services Administration (GSA) on the use of safer products
for indoor painting and cleaning, with the Department of Defense (DoD) on the use of safer
paving materials for parking lots, and with the Defense Logistics Agency on safer solvents. The
program also works with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and other groups to
develop standards for Environmental Management Systems.
In addition to business, industry, and other non-governmental organizations, EPA works with
Federal, state, Tribal, and local governments to encourage reduced generation and safe recycling
of wastes. Partners in this effort include the Environmental Council of States and the Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
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 the Office of
Federal Environmental Executive and 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, the Department of Education, the
Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Postal Service, 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 and the Office of the
Federal Environmental Executive launched the Federal Electronics Challenge which will lead to
increased reuse and recycling of an array of computers and other electronics hardware used by
civilian and military agencies.
Objective: Restore Land
Super fund Remedial Program
The Superfund Remedial program coordinates with several other Federal and state agencies in
providing numerous Superfund related services in order to accomplish the program's mission.
In FY 2008, EPA will have active interagency agreements with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the Department of the Interior (DOI).
The Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation also 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.
Appendix-11
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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).
Super fundFederal Facilities Program
The Superfund Federal Facilities Program coordinates with Federal agencies, states, Tribes and
state associations and others to implement its statutory responsibilities to ensure cleanup and
property reuse. The Program provides technical and regulatory oversight at Federal facilities to
ensure human health and the environment are protected.
In expediting the 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 National Priorities List (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.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Agency coordinates efforts with the DOE to study the energy and environmental benefits of
re-refining used oil, including such actions as providing tax incentives for re-refiners, banning
used oil in space heaters, and directing the federal government to send its used oil to re-refiners.
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.
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
oversight and programmatic role.
Emergency Preparedness and Response
EPA plays a major role in reducing the risks that accidental and intentional releases of harmful
substances and oil pose to human health and the environment. This requires continuous
coordination with many Federal, state and local agencies. As the Federal On-Scene Coordinator
Appendix-12
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
in the inland zone, EPA evaluates and responds to thousands of releases annually as part of the
National Response System (NRS). The organizations in the NRS work with state and local
officials to develop and maintain contingency plans to enable the Nation to respond effectively to
hazardous substance and oil emergencies.
The National Response Plan (NRP), under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), provides for the delivery of Federal assistance to states to help them deal with the
consequences of terrorist events as well as natural and other significant disasters. EPA maintains
the lead responsibility for the NRP's Emergency Support Function covering inland hazardous
materials and petroleum releases and participates in the Federal Emergency Support Function
Leaders Group which addresses NRP planning and implementation at the operational level.
EPA coordinates its preparedness activities with DHS, FEMA, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and other Federal agencies, states and local governments. EPA will continue to
clarify its roles and responsibilities to ensure that Agency security programs are consistent with
the national homeland security strategy.
Oil Spills
Under the Oil Spill Program, EPA works with other Federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), NOAA, FEMA, DOT, DOT, DOE, and other
Federal agencies and states, as well as with local government authorities to develop Area
Contingency Plans. The Department of Justice also provides assistance to agencies with judicial
referrals when enforcement of violations becomes necessary. In FY 2008, EPA will have an
active interagency agreement with the USCG. EPA and the USCG work in coordination with
other Federal authorities to implement the National Preparedness for Response Program.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research
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.
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. EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and Navy recently signed a MOU to
increase collaboration and coordination in contaminated sediments research. 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
Appendix-13
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
developed an MOU4 with several other agencies [DOE, DoD, NRC, USGS, NOAA, and USD A]
for multimedia modeling research and development.
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.
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.
4 For more information please go to: Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Models MOU,
http://www.iscmem.org/Memorandum.htm
Appendix-14
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
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 (CEC), 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
Appendix-15
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
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.
Appendix-16
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
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 (CEC), 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
Appendix-17
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
network of domestic partners interested in working on this issue, including the DOE and the
USGS.
EPA has developed cooperative efforts on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) with key
international organizations and bodies, such as the United Nations Food and Agricultural
Organization, the United Nations Environment Program, the Arctic Council, and the World
Bank. EPA is partnering with domestic and international industry groups and foreign
governments to develop successful programs.
Objective: Communities
The Governments of Mexico and the United States agreed, in November 1993, to assist
communities on both sides of the border in coordinating and carrying out environmental
infrastructure projects. The agreement between Mexico and the United States furthers the goals
of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation. To this purpose, the governments established two international
institutions, the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North
American Development Bank (NADBank), which manages the Border Environmental
Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), to support the financing and construction of much needed
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 on the U.S and
300 km on the Mexico side of the U.S.-Mexico border.
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
Appendix-18
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements, EPA works with USTR to
ensure that U.S. obligations under international trade agreements do not hamper the ability of
Federal and state governments to maintain high levels of domestic environmental protection.
The two agencies also work together to ensure that new obligations are consistent with U.S. law
and EPA's rules, regulations, and programs. In addition to the work with USTR, EPA also
cooperates with many other Federal agencies in the development and execution of U.S. trade
policy, and in performing environmental reviews of trade agreements, developing and
implementing environmental cooperation agreements associated with each new FTA, and
developing and implementing the associated environmental capacity building projects. EPA
works most closely with the Department of State, USAID and USTR in the capacity building
area. Finally, the Agency also serves as the co-lead (with USTR) of the Trade and Environment
Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC), a formally-constituted advisory body made up of
respected experts from industry, NGOs and academia.
Brownfields
Under the Brownfields Federal Partnership Action Agenda, EPA and its partnering agencies
work together to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and 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
Appendix-19
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In efforts to better leverage our collaborative authorities to address coastal communities'
environmental issues (e.g., coastal habitat losses, nonpoint source pollution, endangered species,
invasive species, etc.), EPA, by memorandum of agreement in 2002 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..." the 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 pursuant to the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). EPA leads a Federal Interagency Task Force
charged with increasing and improving collaboration and integration among Federal programs
involved in Great Lakes environmental activities. Responding to Executive Order 13340, the
President established two major Great Lakes efforts: a "Great Lakes Interagency Task Force"
and a Great Lakes "Regional Collaboration of National Significance" (GLRC). The Great Lakes
task force brings together ten Cabinet department and Federal agency heads to coordinate
restoration of the Great Lakes, focusing on outcomes, such as cleaner water and sustainable
fisheries, and targeting measurable results. In December 2005, the GLRC (including
representatives from Federal agencies, led by EPA; Great Lakes Governors, Mayors, and Tribes;
and the Great Lakes States Congressional Delegation) developed a Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy. This Strategy is being used to guide the Great Lakes environmental
efforts. Coordination by GLNPO supports both the GLWQA and GLRC: GLNPO monitoring
involves extensive coordination among state, federal, and provincial 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; and 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 30 remaining 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
Appendix-20
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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.
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. The Agency collaborates with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on
very difficult and complex human health risk assessments through consultation or review.
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.
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
Appendix-21
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
efforts. The collaborative work with the USGS continues to play a vital role in investigating the
impact and fate of atmospheric loadings of nitrogen and nitrogen applications as part of
restoration technologies on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. All of these efforts have
significant implications for risk management in watersheds, total maximum daily load (TMDL)
implementation, and management of non-point source pollutants.
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 NAS has also been engaged to provide advice on the long-term
direction of the water research and technical support program.
EPA coordinates its nanotechnology research with other Federal agencies through the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI),5 which is managed under the Subcommittee on Nanoscale
Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) of the NSTC Committee on Technology (CoT).
The Agency's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, which awards research grants to
universities and non-profit organizations, has issued its recent nanotechnology grants6 jointly
with NIOSH, NIEHS, and NSF.
The Agency coordinates its global change research with other Federal agencies through the
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP),7 which is managed under the Subcommittee on
Global Change Research of the NSTC Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR). EPA's global change research also contributes to Department of State-coordinated
climate change dialogues with other countries.
5 For more information, see .
6 For an example, see .
7 For more information, see .
Appendix-22
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA collaborates with DOE, USGS, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),8 to
conduct research on mercury. EPA also works with other Federal agencies to coordinate U.S.
participation in the Arctic Mercury Project, a partnership established in 2001 by the eight
member states of the Arctic Council—Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia,
Sweden, and the U.S.
The Agency's coordinates its research fellowship programs with other Federal agencies and the
nonprofit sector through the National Academies' Fellowships Roundtable, which meets
biannually.9
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
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.
For more information, see .
9 For more information, see .
Appendix-23
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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.
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 2008, 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 2008 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.
Appendix-24
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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. EPA is the lead agency
and coordinates U.S. participation in the CEC. EPA works with NOAA, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the U.S. Geological Survey on CEC projects to promote biodiversity cooperation,
and with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to reduce potential trade and environmental
impacts such as invasive species.
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
chains. The EPA is also working with the DOE's Industrial Technologies Program to provide
energy audits and technical assistance to these supply chains.
EPA is working with DOE and USDA to develop a "Biofuels Posture Plan," the first step in
implementing a Biofuels Initiative to support the goals of the President's Advanced Energy
Initiative. The Biofuels Posture Plan will be designed to promote the development of a biofuels
industry in the U.S. to help shift the country towards clean, domestic energy production and
away from dependence on foreign sources of energy (mostly petroleum). EPA is investigating
the use of municipal and industrial solid and hazardous wastes as sources of biomass that can be
used to produce clean biofuels. EPA is promoting specific waste-to-energy technologies through
policy development, research, and, where feasible, regulatory change.
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
Appendix-25
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
(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 NFS 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 NFS
concessionaires that provide various visitor services in more than 130 national parks.
Appendix-26
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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.
EPA, in partnership with Department of Education, the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, and the Centers for Disease Control, is implementing a national
Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign (SC3). SC3 is building a national public/private network
that will facilitate the removal of dangerous and inappropriate chemicals from K - 12 schools;
encourage responsible chemical management practices to prevent future chemical accidents and
accumulations: and raise issue awareness.
Appendix-27
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 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 coordinates U.S. participation in the activities of the North American Commission on
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) on green purchasing, supply chains, and buildings.
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 sustainability research and of
incorporating materials lifecycle analysis into the manufacturing process for weapons and
military equipment. EPA's People, Prosperity, and Planet (P3) student design competition for
sustainability will partner with NASA, NSF, OFEE, USAID, USDA, CEQ, and OSTP. EPA is
continuing its partnerships with NSF, NIEHS, AND NIOSH on jointly issued grant solicitations
for nanotechnology, and its coordination through the NSET with all agencies that are part of the
NNI.
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-28
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL 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., United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Interior, Forest Service, National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (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. Furthermore, the Agency is an active member of the Interagency Forum on
Aging-Related Statistics (www.agingstats.gov). The Forum was created to foster collaboration
among Federal agencies that produce or use statistical data on the older population. The
biannual chartbook contains an indicator on air quality and the counties where older adults reside
that have experienced poor air quality.
EPA's 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. The Associate Administrator for Homeland Security and OHS represent
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 ensures consistent
development and implementation of the Agency's homeland security 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.
Appendix-29
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
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 (SB A) 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 (SDVOSB). It also works with the Department of Education
and the White House Historically Black College and University (HBCU) 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 FYs 2004 and 2006. The OSDBU Directors collaborate to the extent possible to
support major outreach efforts to small and disadvantaged businesses, SDVOSB, and minority-
serving educational institutions via conferences, business fairs, and speaking engagements.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)
EPA makes 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 (OMB), and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO).
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
expertise to Government-wide activities in various areas of human resources, grants
Appendix-30
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
administration, contracts management and Homeland Security. These activities include specific
collaboration efforts with Federal agencies and departments through:
• Chief Human Capital Officers, a group of senior leaders that discuss human capital
initiatives across the Federal government; and
• Legislative & Policy Committee, a committee comprised of other Federal agency
representatives who assist Office of Personnel and 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.
EPA is working with the OMB, 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)
To support EPA's overall mission, OEI collaborates with a number of other Federal agencies and
state and Tribal governments on a variety of initiatives, including initiatives to make government
more efficient and transparent, protect human health and the environment, and assist in
homeland security. OEI is more specifically involved in the areas of information technology
(IT), information management (IM), or information security aspects of the projects it
collaborates on.
To help make government more efficient and transparent, OEI leads the electronic docket system
(E-Dockets) and electronically supported rulemaking (E-Rulemaking) projects, and participates
in the electronic records systems (E-Records) project. E-Docket is a modern and well-supported
electronic docket system. It reduces the cost of maintaining EPA's dockets while improving
their accessibility and security. EPA coordinates with other Federal agencies by making E-
Docket available to host their docket needs. E-Rulemaking is one of the President's E-
Government (E-Gov) initiatives and is being led by EPA, in coordination with the OMB, the
Department of Transportation, and 10 other Federal agencies. The purpose of this initiative is to
apply modern information technology to the rulemaking process to make it more efficient and to
allow broader and easier participation by the public. Building on e-Docket, e-Rulemaking adds
Appendix-31
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
features that make it easier for interested parties, including the public, to review proposed rules
and to submit comments for the record. EPA is also coordinating with the National Archives and
Records Administration on a broader e-Records initiative aimed at establishing uniform
procedures, requirements, and standards for creating and managing Federal e-Gov records.
As part of its effort to help protect human health and the environment, EPA is coordinating with
the states and Tribes to improve the collection, management, and sharing of environmental
information. A key component of these efforts is EPA's participation in the State/EPA
Information Management Workgroup and Network Steering Board. As a member of the Board,
EPA participates in action teams comprised of EPA, state, and Tribal members, designed to
identify information projects that can resolve information issues and to arrive at consensus
solutions. Two of the areas that this forum has worked on extensively are developing
environmental data standards and implementing new technologies for collecting and reporting
information.
In addition to protecting human health and the environment, EPA also supports homeland
security by coordinating extensively with a number of other Federal agencies to develop and
expand the use of geographically based information. These efforts include coordination with the
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), Federal Geographic Data Committee, Chief Information
Officer (CIO) Council (http://www.cio.gov), DHS, Council for Environmental Quality, ECOS,
other national security agencies, and state agencies. Much of this work is done by multi-agency
workgroups designed to ensure consistent implementation of standards and technologies across
the Federal government to support efficient sharing of data, especially the sharing of
geographically based data and Geographic Information Systems. A key aspect of this work is
developing and implementing the infrastructure to support an assortment of national spatial data
- data that can be attached to and portrayed on maps. This work has several key applications,
including ensuring that human health and environmental conditions are represented in the
appropriate contexts, supporting the assessment of environmental conditions and changes, and
supporting first responders and other homeland security situations. Additionally, EPA
coordinates with the CIO Council and other Federal agencies on projects related to information
security, capital planning, workforce development, interoperability, and infrastructure related to
homeland security.
Another area where EPA actively coordinates with other Governmental entities is public access
to information. In addition to the E-Gov initiatives described above, EPA also coordinates with
the USGS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, and state and local government
partners to expand and improve public access to information affecting their lives. EPA also
works with states, Tribes, local agencies, and non-governmental organizations to design and
implement specific community-based information projects.
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 and the
Appendix-32
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Roundtable to promote greater coordination
and collaboration among the 54 Federal agency IGs and GAO in addressing cross-cutting
management and environmental issues. The OIG Special Operations Division coordinates
activities with other law enforcement organizations that have computer crimes units such as the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and the Department of Justice. In addition,
the OIG participates with various inter-governmental audit forums, professional associations,
training activities and other cross-governmental forums to exchange information, share best
practices, and direct collaborative efforts. The OIG also promotes collaboration by EPA with its
Federal, state and local partners for greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the
application of technology, information and resources.
Appendix-33
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
As required by the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG)
identifies, briefly assesses, and reports annually the most serious management and performance
challenges facing the Agency. In April 2006, 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 control deficiency that could adversely
impact the integrity of Agency programs and activities. EPA has made great progress in
addressing the issues raised by OIG and GAO, and will continue to work diligently to ensure that
these, as well as other issues do not affect EPA's mission to protect human health and the
environment.
EPA senior managers are committed to resolving current issues and identifying and addressing
vulnerabilities or 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 2006, for the fifth 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.
1. Emission Factors for Sources of Air Pollution
Scope of Challenge: The Agency faces significant challenges in improving emissions
factors. A recent OIG evaluation found conflicting guidance on appropriately using
emissions factors; a rating system that did not quantify the uncertainty associated with
emissions factors; inadequate funding of the program; and the lack of a comprehensive plan
to improve data collection and set priorities. EPA needs to limit the decisions being made
with poor quality emissions factors and to provide significant non-regulatory incentives to
industry and state or local agencies to obtain the data it needs to improve emissions factors.
(OIG)
EPA and its stakeholders use emissions factors to make about 80 percent of emissions
determinations for sources of air pollution and rely on them for other environmental decisions as
Appendix-34
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
well. The Agency is making it easier for industries to transform their emissions data into
emissions factors and to transmit them to state and federal reviewers quickly. EPA is re-
engineering its emissions factors program, investing over $500,000 to develop more and better
emissions factors and account for uncertainty. In FY 2006, EPA developed and launched the
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which provides an electronic version of emission test plans
and reports. ERT allows source owners or operators to transmit standardized emission test data
to state, local, or tribal reviewers, and enables reviewers to evaluate and report on the quality of
the emissions testing and assess the uncertainty of future, as well as existing, emission factors.
These reviewers will then be able to assess the quality of the testing online before submitting the
results to the newly developed WebFIRE, an internet version of the emissions Factor Information
Retrieval System (FIRE) that integrates AP-42 emissions factor data with FIRE data in a user-
friendly on-line search program.
Highlights of progress include:
. Launched WebFIRE, an interactive web version of the emissions Factor
Information Retrieval (FIRE) system, that combines AP-42 and FIRE data so
that users are no longer required to conduct independent checks while searching
for emission factors (more information is available at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main .
. Conducted an extensive statistical analysis on determining the uncertainty of
highly-rated emissions factors.
Completed and published updates to emission factors for floating roof tanks and
low pressure petroleum storage tanks.
Plans for further improvements include:
Enhance WebFIRE to allow users to independently check and verify background
information for emissions factors.
. Provide the results of the uncertainty analysis to external partners for review and
comment.
Develop emissions factors for coke ovens, landfills, municipal waste
combustors, steel mini-mills, landing losses for external floating roofs, and low
pressure petroleum storage tanks.
Initiate development of emissions factors for natural gas engines, rubber
manufacturers, and animal feeding operations.
2. Voluntary Climate Change Program
Scope of Challenge: Two voluntary programs aimed at securing private sector agreements
to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions or emissions intensity need to be especially
robust and involve a substantial portion of the economy if they are going to achieve desired
results. The Climate Leaders and Climate VISION voluntary programs involve companies
and industries that represent less than one-half of total U.S. emissions. While many
participants have made progress in completing program steps in a timely manner, some
participants appear not to be progressing at the rate expected. GAO recommends that EPA
develop written policies establishing the consequences for not completing program steps on
schedule. EPA and DOE are working to estimate the emission reductions attributable to
Appendix-35
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
their programs. However, both agencies will need to find ways to determine their programs'
contribution to emission reduction. (GAO)
In its April 2006 report on Climate Change, GAO recommended that EPA develop written policy
for increasing progress under the EPA Climate Leaders program. EPA believes GAO's
recommendation was addressed in the initial design of the program. The Agency has detailed its
existing policy in an internal memorandum which documents the steps that EPA will take if it
believes a participant is not progressing in completing the program requirements in a timely
manner.
On average, it takes about a year from the date a participant joins the program to develop a high-
quality inventory and management plan and complete the base year reporting requirements.
However, EPA recognizes that some participants may take longer to complete these
requirements due to factors such as mergers and acquisitions, complexity of calculating
emissions from some sources and sectors, data availability, or other issues. Given the
differences in the size and complexity of participants' corporate inventories, EPA believes that
written public policy establishing consequences for not meeting program steps on a specified
schedule would be detrimental to recruiting companies to undertake the significant voluntary
effort needed to meet the program requirements.
When EPA believes a participant is not making a good faith effort to complete program
requirements, the Agency will telephone the participant to re-invigorate the process; send an
official letter urging the participant to act more expeditiously; and, if necessary, remove the
participant from the program for noncompliance. EPA will continue to monitor participants'
progress through its program tracking system, which includes a goal tracking spreadsheet and
inventory of calls conducted to discuss progress.
Highlights of progress include:
Provided official letters to two program participants EPA believes were not
making good faith efforts to complete program requirements in a timely manner.
Plans for further improvements include:
Continue to monitor progress of the two partners who received letters.
Continue to monitor other participants' progress through the program tracking
system to identify issues that may delay completing program requirements.
3. Efficiently Managing Water and Wastewater Resources and Infrastructure
Scope of Challenge: The Agency faces challenges in finding innovative ways to reach and
influence the management behavior, skills, and abilities of thousands of small utilities. EPA
needs to define its role as part of a long-term national strategy on sustainable water
infrastructure that addresses financial and management issues so that the Nation's water
quality is protected now and in the future. (O1G)
EPA believes it has taken, and will continue to take, effective steps to define its role in closing
the gap in funding for water infrastructure and assisting states and communities in overcoming
Appendix-36
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
infrastructure issues. The Agency is incorporating the four pillars of its Sustainable Water
Infrastructure Initiative—better management, full cost pricing, water efficiency, and the
watershed approach—into existing programs and redirecting funds toward this initiative.
Highlights of progress include:
Launched WaterSense, a market enhancement program that is increasing
national awareness of water-efficient choices and the value of clean and safe
water.
Co-sponsored the Water Quality Trading Conference with USDA that brought
together utility companies and the agricultural community to build further
momentum for trading programs that maximize impact from infrastructure
investments.
Continued to produce assistance documents and tools targeting the needs and
special circumstances of small utilities (e.g., Simple Tools for Effective
Performance [STEP] and Total Electronic Asset Management Software
[TEAMS]).
Plans for further improvements include:
. Develop an internal strategy that focuses on better management of wastewater
for small communities and disadvantaged and underserved populations.
Prepare a Drinking Water Capacity Development Strategic Plan to ensure that
the Agency's outreach efforts to small utilities are well coordinated and
effective.
4. Chemical Regulation
Scope of Challenge: In a June 2005 review, GAO found that EPA does not routinely assess
the risks of all existing chemicals and faces challenges in obtaining the information
necessary to do so. Although EPA initiated the High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge
Program, it is not yet clear whether the program will produce sufficient information for EPA
to determine chemicals' risks to human health and the environment. GAO recommends EPA
develop and implement a methodology for using information collected through the HPV
Challenge Program to prioritize chemicals for further review and identify information
needed to assess their risks; promulgate a rule requiring chemical companies to submit to
EPA copies of health and safety studies they submit to foreign governments; develop a
strategy for validating risk assessment models; and revise regulations to require companies
to reassert claims of confidentiality within a certain time period. (GAO)
The High Production Volume Challenge Program has already resulted in a substantial amount of
basic screening level data. The approximately 2,800 HPV chemicals included in both the U. S.
Challenge Program and the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) Program
represent over 93 percent of the production volume of chemicals tracked on the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory. Through the U.S. HPV Challenge Program, the
public now has access to test plans and robust summaries for more than 15,000 health and safety
studies on over 1,400 chemicals. Many of the test plans and robust summaries are included in
the recently launched searchable database known as the High Production Volume Information
Appendix-37
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
System (HPVIS). Additionally, the Agency has a complementary international effort underway
with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to address HPV chemicals,
some of which are not included in the HPV Challenge Program.
While the HPV data continues to be submitted, the Agency is currently implementing an
approach for prioritizing and screening HPV chemicals for further review. The approach
involves implementing a tiering process to identify chemicals for more in-depth review of data
submitted for quality and completeness, development of screening-level hazard
characterizations for the chemicals, and preparation of data needs documentation in order to
proceed with risk assessment and potential risk management for chemicals of concern.
EPA believes focusing first on HPV chemicals is the best strategy for understanding chemical
risks to human health and the environment. GAO's recommendation to require chemical
companies to submit to EPA copies of health and safety studies they submit to foreign
governments suggests a potentially broad-ranging information collection rule. While such a
reporting rule may bring useful information, other more targeted approaches, such as the efforts
directed towards HPV chemicals, which are directed at EPA's domestic priorities rather than
foreign government mandates, may be a more prudent and efficient use of government and
affected party resources. Further, it is expected that much information submitted to foreign
governments will made available to the public and accessible to EPA. EPA has been a leader in
international information sharing and is actively engaged in a variety of activities (e.g.,
developing a Global Data Portal, working with the Canadian government to implement the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and participating in development of guidance on
grouping chemicals for assessment within the OECD chemicals program).
Highlights of progress include:
. Launched the HPV Information System (HPVIS) to make information submitted
under the HPV Challenge Program accessible to the public in a searchable
format.
Submitted 404 test plans and robust summaries covering 1404 total chemicals.
. Established and implemented the scheme for establishing priority reviews of
chemical data submitted under the auspices of the HPV Challenge Program.
. Promulgated the first HPV Test Rule under Section 4 of TSCA for 17 chemicals.
Initiated analysis of Confidential Business Information (CBI) trends.
Plans for further improvements include:
Continue work on a second HPV rule to backstop the voluntary HPV program
and ensure that test data is available on all HPV chemicals.
. Complete hazard screening level characterizations and identification of further
data needs for Tier 1 HPV chemicals.
Develop a Global Data Portal, which will allow searching, viewing and
exchanging of test data between the United States, European Union, and other
governments (2008).
. Conclude CBI analysis and implement changes, if appropriate.
Appendix-38
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
5. Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Scope of Challenge: With budget constraints and limited resources and the Nation's high
expectation for environmental protections, it is important that EPA develop more flexible and
cost-effective management approaches to its environmental enforcement and compliance
programs. The Agency needs to intensify its efforts to move from a performance
management system toward a system focused on achieving measurable improvements; ensure
that funds are used to achieve consistent and equitable enforcement; and develop an effective
workforce strategy and assessment system to ensure resources are appropriately allocated.
Additionally, recurring findings show inconsistencies in program delivery among EPA 's
regional offices have often exceeded the expected level. EPA also needs to make a long-term
commitment to filling critical enforcement data gaps.
EPA believes that a high degree of management attention and considerable financial and staff
resources are being dedicated to the issues raised by GAO. The Agency has increased its focus
on measurable environmental results by expanding its use of outcome measures in the last
several years. Under EPA's current Strategic Plan, the compliance objective and sub-objectives
set quantitative targets for contributing to various environmental protection outcomes.
The Agency employs a host of national policies and guidance that ensure consistency across
regions. Statute-specific policies include those addressing compliance monitoring, enforcement
response to violations, penalties and responsibility for cleanup of hazardous waste sites - all of
which were created to provide consistency across headquarters and regions. With respect to
specific enforcement cases, consistency is achieved through routine collaboration between the
regions and headquarters on policy applicability and interpretation issues. This collaboration is
required on issues of national significance. Although the regions have the authority to conduct
most cases independent of headquarters, approval by headquarters is required when the terms of
the settlement deviate from policy or when the case includes issues that meet the criteria for
national significance.
In an effort to ensure that resources are appropriately allocated, EPA has dedicated a significant
percentage of its activities and resources to specific national priorities - risks and noncompliance
patterns that deserve federal attention. These priorities are selected through a collaborative
process that: (1) identifies risks and patterns that may be potential national priorities; (2)
evaluates each on three criteria (benefit gained from reducing or solving the problem, scope of
the noncompliance pattern, and appropriateness of federal intervention); and (3) develops
national strategies with goals and measures for each of the priorities ultimately selected.
Highlights of progress include:
. Developed, in collaboration with the Environmental Council of the States, a
mechanism for enhancing state program performance and rewarding achievement
of environmental results.
. Continued to allocate funds to help address resource gaps for implementing the
Compliance Assurance Program's national priorities.
Worked with states to improve the quality of data they provide to us and the
sharing of compliance rate data with external stakeholders
Appendix-39
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Plans for further improvements include:
. Develop more statistically-valid outcome measures and incorporate risk
characterization into our outcome reporting.
Continue reviewing all state enforcement and compliance programs to determine
their adequacy on twelve performance elements.
6. Managing for Results
Scope of Challenge: EPA has made considerable progress in linking resource investments
to results and improving its PART scores. However, the Agency needs to focus on the logic
of program design, measures of success, measures of efficiency, and ensuring programs and
process are set up so that EPA can evaluate the results and make changes. EPA must also
continue improvements to track the cost of achieving environmental results, and EPA
managers should consider cost when making operational and strategic decisions. (OIG)
While EPA acknowledges the importance of the opportunities OIG identified for improvement,
the Agency believes that it is making and will continue to make significant progress in these
areas. Over the past years, EPA has worked with stakeholders to strengthen results-based
management at EPA. In FY 2006, the Agency completed its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, which
reflects a sharpened focus on achieving measurable results and will help advance protection of
human health and the environment. The Agency continues to improve the quality of its
performance measures and ability to track costs, and it is making cost and performance
information available to managers for operational and strategic decision making.
OMB has acknowledged EPA's significant accomplishments in these areas by awarding the
Agency progress scores of "green" for Budget and Performance Integration under the President's
Management Agenda for all but one consecutive quarter since June 2002. EPA continues to
receive "green" status scores for Improved Financial Performance, in recognition of the
Agency's use of financial and performance information in day-to-day program management and
decision making.
Highlights of progress include:
Improved the outcome orientation of the objectives, sub-objectives, and strategic
targets presented in EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan.
• Worked with the Environmental Council of the States to implement OMB's
directive that requires EPA to develop standard templates for states to use to submit
state grant agreements.
. Improved the Agency's annual planning and budgeting process by analyzing
performance trends and cost information to establish priorities for EPA's 2008
budget. Conducted performance and budget hearings with program offices,
regions, states, and tribes to review performance and identify potential efficiencies.
. Enhanced the Annual Commitment System (ACS) to track three new classes of
measures (Senior Executive Service organizational assessment, state grant
template, and regional priorities). The system also flags measures which contribute
to OMB's Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) evaluations.
Appendix-40
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Launched a new intranet website (http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/acs) to provide
information on ACS developments and the annual performance commitment
process.
. Developed a new detailed performance report and financial management reports
through the Office of the Chief Financial Officer's Reporting and Business
Intelligence Tool (ORBIT). Replicating key financial reports will enable EPA to
realize significant cost savings by retiring the Management and Accounting
Reporting Systems (MARS).
Plans for further improvements include:
. Continue to enhance the reporting capabilities of the Agency's ACS.
. Strengthen performance measurement to better manage programs for improved
accountability.
7. Human Capital Management
Scope of Challenge: EPA faces challenges in maintaining a highly skilled, diverse, results-
oriented workforce. The Agency must complete four activities listed in its Strategic
Workforce Plan: identifying competencies, taking inventory of current workforce, identifying
gaps, and developing strategies and solutions to close gaps. While EPA continues to make
progress in developing performance appraisals and workforce planning, the Agency must
now evaluate the results of its human capital initiatives and adjust its strategy to ensure it
meets its human capital goals. GAO finds that despite EPA 's progress in improving the
management of its human capital, effectively implementing a human capital strategic plan
remains a major challenge. The Agency needs to comprehensively assess its workforce—
number of employees needed, technical skills required, best allocation among goals and
geographic locations—and continue monitoring its progress to ensure it has a well-trained
and motivated workforce with the right mix of skills and experience. (OIG and GAO)
OIG and GAO continue to cite managing human capital as a management challenge as well as an
Agency-level weakness. EPA is working closely with OMB and the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) to align the Agency's Human Capital Strategy to meet the objectives
outlined in the PMA as it relates to the Strategic Management of Human Capital. Developing
and implementing a comprehensive strategic workforce planning model and development
strategy will address concerns identified by OIG and GAO. EPA currently acknowledges human
capital as an Agency-level weakness (immaterial) under FMFIA and has made great strides in
meeting its human capital challenges.
Highlights of progress include:
. Aligned its FY 2007 Human Capital Action Plan with the Strategy for Human
Capital and Strategic Workforce Plan.
. Addressed human capital in the Agency's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan and identified
the priority mission critical occupations and core competencies needed to support
the Plan
Issued an Agency-wide Strategic Workforce Plan.
Continued to implement a competency-based approach to workforce planning.
Appendix-41
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
. Implemented a SES Mobility Program to enhance skills and ensure the continuity
of leadership.
. Completed the first full rating cycle under the new 5-tier performance appraisal
system.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Implement competency assessments for Agency-specific priority mission critical
occupations.
Refine targets for workforce planning and procedures for closing gaps.
Improve the Agency's employee performance evaluation system.
. Continue to implement the Agency's rigorous accountability and human capital
assessment program.
8. Improved Management of Assistance Agreements/Grants Management
Scope of Challenge: EPA has taken actions to improve its grant management and address
the issues identified. The Agency needs to continue defining environmental measures for its
activities so that measures can be incorporated into grant documentation. Also, EPA needs
to continue to emphasize supervisor and project officer accountability for managing grants
in accordance with policies and procedures. GAO reports that EPA has faced persistent
grants management challenges for many years. While EPA has issued a 5-year grants
management plan and made progress in addressing the issue, weaknesses in implementation
and accountability continue to hamper effective grants management. In particular, problems
remain in documenting ongoing monitoring and in closing out grants. (OIG and GAO)
EPA believes it has made significant progress in addressing the issues raised by OIG and GAO.
The Agency has adjusted its corrective action and internal controls as necessary to further the
principles of accountability, transparency, and results. In FY 2003, EPA issued its first long-
term Grants Management Plan, with associated performance measures, to map the Agency's
approach for improving grants management. The Agency is continuing to implement this plan.
EPA currently acknowledges assistance agreements as an Agency-level weakness (immaterial)
under FMFIA.
Highlights of progress include:
. Subjected 92 percent of new grants to the revised competition policy, exceeding the
performance goal set in the Grants Management Plan.
Developed and implemented an on-line Basic Project Officer training class that
contains advanced stand-alone modules on managing performance partnership
grants and environmental grants.
. Implemented the Agency's "Green Plan" to integrate grants with financial data and
eliminate duplicate data entry.
. Revised the Agency's new Post Award Monitoring Order. The new Order will
require that all baseline monitoring be documented in the Grantee Compliance
Database.
Deployed the Integrated Grants Management System to headquarters users
(January 2007).
Appendix-42
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Met 90 percent of the 99 percent closeout goal in the Grants Management Plan.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Implement GAO's recommendation to develop new environmental results
performance measures under the Grants Management Plan.
Distribute guidance for assessing project officer and supervisor performance in
grants management.
9. Data Gaps/Environmental Information
Scope of Challenge: EPA reports demonstrate the usefulness of environmental indicators in
tracking environmental progress. However, while some important data exist, EPA and its
partners are not yet engaged in efforts to fill high priority data gaps and ensure that data
deemed important will be collected in the future. To address data gaps, EPA and its partners
will need to collaborate during budget preparation and strategic prioritization. Additionally,
GAO believes that EPA data problems limit national indicators of environmental conditions
and trends from being fully developed. EPA needs clear lines of responsibility and
accountability among its various organizational components and specific requirements for
developing and using environmental indicators. (OIG and GA O)
As part of its strategic planning, EPA continues to implement and refine processes to identify
and prioritize data gaps, including coordinating the draft Report of the Environment (ROE) with
the Agency's strategic planning and budgeting process. As part of developing EPA's 2006-2011
Strategic Plan, national program managers (NPMs) considered the suite of ROE questions and
indicators as a means of helping the Agency develop better environmental performance goals
and measures and to identify and set priorities for filling gaps in the information needed to
manage programs. NPMs were also required to develop a preliminary strategy for improving
performance measures to make them more environmental outcome oriented. Each strategy
identified priorities for filling key data gaps to meet the most critical needs and provided a brief
recommendation on how to address critical gaps in program data.
Highlights of progress include:
Completed gaps analysis and documentation.
Developed a process for identifying and ranking key data gaps.
. Prepared an options paper addressing ROE indicators and data gaps for the
Indicators Steering Committee (ICS).
Developed a pilot (endorsed by ICS) that assesses how the ROE and strategic
planning efforts can best inform and support one another.
Plans for further improvements include:
Analyze and discuss ROE indicator gaps and limitations
Further refine the process to identify and prioritize data gaps identified in the
ROE as part of the Agency's strategic and budget planning process.
. Continue to use existing interagency forums, such as the Global Earth System of
Systems and the Collaboration on Indicators in the Nation's Environment, to
identify how and where existing efforts can be leveraged among partners.
Appendix-43
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
10. Information Technology Systems Development and Implementation
Scope of Challenge: EPA has taken steps to strengthen its Capital Planning and Investment
Control (CPIC) and system development process by updating its CP 1C policy and publishing
an Interim Agency System Life Cycle Management Policy. The Agency needs to further
enhance its IT investment control structure and hold system managers accountable. (OIG)
In its September 2005 report, "EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Its Information Technology
Projects," OIG noted that EPA has experienced system development and implementation
problems and did not sufficiently oversee information technology (IT) projects to ensure they
met planned budgets and schedules.
In January 2006, EPA responded to OIG's audit findings and recommendations. While EPA's
Chief Information Officer (CIO) has the lead for ensuring effective IT project management,
primary authority and responsibility lies with the senior manager in the office that owns the IT
project, with appropriate oversight by the CIO. EPA's response to OIG, therefore, included an
action plan calling for formal delegation of independent oversight responsibility and an
additional question in the CPIC process focusing on System Life Cycle documentation and
approvals. The plan also calls for increased emphasis on reviewing solutions architecture
documents and an outreach and education program for senior management and Senior
Information Officials. OIG has agreed to the action plan and believes it will address the report
findings and recommendations. Based on the action plan in place and progress made to date, the
audit was closed in January 2006.
Highlights of progress include:
. Issued a revised System Life Cycle Management Policy.
. Developed Enterprise Architecture Governance Procedures that require review,
approval, and certification that solutions architectures are aligned with both
federal and EPA enterprise architectures.
. Briefed Agency Senior Information Officials.
Plans for further improvements include:
Continue to conduct outreach briefings with senior management.
. Review information submitted in response to the CPIC question on System Life
Cycle documentation and approval.
11. Data Standards and Data Quality
Scope of Challenge: EPA has a substantive effort in place to develop data standards and
guide their implementation. However, the Agency needs to continue to focus on ensuring
that data are of sufficient quality for decision-making (e.g., assess drinking water laboratory
integrity and incorporate techniques to identify improper practices and fraud into the
laboratory oversight process). EPA should also take further steps to ensure consistent
approval of electronic reporting systems under the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule
(CROMERR) and continue to address the "Record Keeping" portion of the rule. (OIG)
Appendix-44
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA currently acknowledges implementation of data standards as an Agency-level weakness
(immaterial) under FMFIA. In FY 2006, the Agency completed five of the eight major
milestones to address this weakness. The remaining corrective actions are on track for
completion in FY 2010. Also, EPA has an effort in place to ensure that Agency laboratories are
operating under approved Quality Management Plans (including government-owned, contractor-
operated labs). In FY 2004, EPA worked with the Forum on Environmental Measurements to
develop a policy directive to document the competency of Agency laboratories. Agency
laboratories must demonstrate on-going performance through independent external assessments
and participation in inter-laboratory comparison studies, which will be reported and reviewed on
an annual basis via Quality Assurance Annual Reports and Work Plans.
With regard to commercial laboratories, the Agency will continue to manage its Drinking Water
Laboratory Certification program (comprising training, guidance materials, proficiency testing,
laboratory audits, and program reviews) by working with states and EPA regional partners to
implement the program. The Agency will look for opportunities to strengthen the program based
upon recommendations identified by the OIG in FY 2006. OIG recommendations include
integrating fraud awareness/detection into the program to a greater degree to complement the
traditional focus on laboratory capability and improper practices.
In response to electronic record keeping issues, CROMERR sets standards for electronic
reporting systems used by EPA and its authorized partners (state, tribal, and local governments)
to receive electronic reports submitted by regulated entities in lieu of paper. The rule requires
that states, tribes, and local governments seek EPA approval for these systems as complying with
the CROMERR standards. The Agency currently has an organizational structure for the review
and approval of electronic reporting systems operated by EPA and authorized state, tribal, and
local government programs. The CROMERR approval process has been in place for about 3
months, and there is no evidence that approvals might be inconsistent in the future. EPA does
not believe there is a demonstrable need to regulate electronic record keeping. Currently, records
addressed by CROMERR are maintained electronically by the regulated companies. While this
practice has been widespread for at least a decade, EPA has seen no evidence that this practice
has resulted in any harm to environmental programs or their enforceability. Also, a requirement
of this magnitude would impose unacceptable cost on regulated companies and would likely be
more effective if proposed as a government-wide initiative.
Highlights of progress include:
Develop draft standard operating procedures for the Technical Review
Committee.
. Developed CROMERR guidance, which includes a system checklist and a set of
examples on approaches to CROMERR-compliant e-reporting
Developed a tracking system for CROMERR approvals.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Provide a fact sheet for existing EPA systems that are working on CROMERR
compliance.
Appendix-45
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Develop a step by step guide for program system managers to determine if they
are compliant with the electronic reporting rule.
12. Voluntary Alternative, and Innovative Practices and Programs
Scope of Challenge: EPA supports and advocates a range of voluntary programs and
innovative or alternative practices. However, their growth has not been matched by efforts
or processes to define the programs, determine which programs work and how efficiently, or
determine the respective goals and expectations of voluntary programs or alternative
approaches compared to regulatory programs and approaches. EPA must improve its ability
to articulate or measure the results of voluntary programs or innovative and alternative
approaches. (OIG)
The terms "voluntary, alternative, and innovative" encompass a tremendously diverse array of
activities. These programs range from high-profile programs such as Energy Star and
Performance Track to the more than 100 "voluntary" partnership programs that exist Agency-
wide. Many different program offices and regions are responsible for ensuring that these
programs are well-designed and well-managed. EPA's Innovation Action Council (IAC),
composed of the Agency's senior managers, directs and oversees the Agency's innovation
agenda. IAC has a number of efforts underway to clarify the goals and measures and evaluate
the results of innovative and "voluntary" partnership programs and has established workgroups
on Performance Measurement, Voluntary Partnership Programs, and Environmental
Stewardship.
A priority of the IAC over the past year has been to identify organizational strategies to help
strengthen the performance-orientation of EPA's innovative programs. This includes articulating
goals clearly, measuring outputs and outcomes, and evaluating of the relationship between the
two.
Highlights of progress include:
. Conducted a needs assessment to identify what additional information, tools, or
services would be helpful in improving the design, measurement, and evaluation
of innovative and other programs.
Developed guidance that promotes a strategic approach to program evaluation
and encourages innovative programs to participate in EPA's annual Program
Evaluation Competition.
Developed a notification system for new or expanding partnership programs to
assure sound design and to eliminate program overlap or conflicts.
. Established a partnership program coordination function within the
Administrator's office to encourage sound program design and management,
with particular emphasis on performance measurement.
Developed guidelines on designing, marketing, and measuring the performance
of partnership programs to assure they are designed to demonstrate
environmental results.
Conducted a national practitioners' workshop for training on good program
design and performance measurement.
Appendix-46
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
. Provided training on performance measurement to approximately 2300 EPA
employees.
Plans for further improvements include:
Continue implementing the three areas of the needs assessment (design,
measurement, and evaluation).
. Implement a new information collection request that will enable a number of
voluntary programs to collect data critical to evaluating their impacts and
effectiveness.
Publish an Agency-wide partnership program accomplishments report to
summarize and aggregate the overall environmental results achieved by these
programs.
Conduct strategic assessment of all partnership programs to evaluate program
performance and identify opportunities for greater coordination or consolidation.
. Work with partnership programs to implement measurement guidelines.
. Maintain an internal EPA network of performance management training and
technical assistance providers in the Agency's program and regional offices who
can assist "voluntary, alternative, and innovative" programs in measurement and
evaluation.
13. Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security
Scope of Challenge: Challenges remain as EPA finalizes its Emergency Response Business
Plan for selecting incidents of national significance scenarios; dealing with conflicts in
preparing for incidents; specifying its role in the National Approach to Response work plans;
and monitoring progress. Because EPA made limited progress in accomplishing the
initiatives in its 2004 Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Protection Plan (C1PP),
EPA 's ability to protect public health and the environment from future terrorist attacks or
other nationally significant incidents is not at the level the Agency determined necessary.
(OIG)
EPA's Emergency Response Plan provides a framework for the Agency to address simultaneous
incidents of national significance while maintaining an effective day-to-day emergency response
and removal operations. In preparing the plan, headquarters and regions use five simultaneous
incidents in a "worst case" planning scenario around which to develop detailed assessments, gap
analyses, and program activities. The Plan incorporates chemical, biological and radiological
scenarios. It also briefly describes the necessary changes in the management of personnel,
financial, and other resources required to address incidents of national significance readiness.
These changes are identified as EPA's National Approach to Response (NAR) priorities and
work is underway.
EPA submitted its Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources Protection Plan Project (CIPP)
Matrix to OMB for review and approval. While OMB continues its review, EPA has begun
implementing CIPP initiatives. To date, six of the ten initiatives have been completed, and two
of the remaining initiatives will be completed by July 2008. One initiative, upgrade of the
Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System Process, calls for the staggered
Appendix-47
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
acquisition of 180 monitors. The current schedule for this ambitious upgrade is completion by
2012. The final initiative to be completed is acquisition of a Trace Atmospheric Gas Analyzer
bus. EPA currently acknowledges homeland security as an Agency-level weakness (immaterial)
under FMFIA.
Highlights of progress include:
. Developed and implemented an information technology strategy to move
seamlessly from field tools to enterprise architecture. The strategy will link
prevention and preparedness data to response.
. Developed a draft Incident Management Handbook that provides guidance on
organizational structure and outlines the communications flow during an
incident of national significance.
Formed an Administrative and Finance Workgroup to address procurement,
property tracking, and pay issues.
. Deployed the National Decontamination Team during the Hurricane Katrina
response.
Established a steering committee to provide oversight and leadership to the
numerous workgroups that support the Agency's National Approach to
Response.
. Developed a training course for senior managers on emergency response and the
use of the Incident Command System (ICS) to assure that roles and
responsibilities are well understood.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Finalize the Agency's National Approach to Response (NAR) Communication
Plan, which will address roles and responsibilities for incidents of national
significance and a "How to Manual" with pre-approved messaging templates.
. Complete the Emergency Response Equipment Data Tracking System
Continue to coordinate the implementation of the 2004 CIPP (OSWER).
14. Restoration Strategies for the Great Lake Basin
Scope of Challenge: EPA has made progress in guiding the development of an overall
strategy for restoration of the environmental conditions in the Great Lakes Basin. However,
it is unclear whether the strategy will be the guiding document for Great Lakes restoration.
The Agency needs a clearly defined organizational structure with measurable basin-wide
goals and a monitoring system as called for in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and
the Clean Water Act. The Agency also needs to follow through to ensure that progress is
made on achieving the goals of the strategy. (GAO)
In May 2004, President Bush signed Executive Order 13340, creating a cabinet-level interagency
task force to bring an unprecedented level of collaboration and coordination to restore and
protect the Great Lakes. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) was cited in the
Order and given the responsibility for providing assistance in carrying out the goals of the Order.
In addition, the Order directed that a "Regional Collaboration of National Significance" be
convened to bring the many governmental and non-governmental partners together to protect and
Appendix-48
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
restore the Great Lakes. In December 2005, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration developed a
strategy to guide federal, state, tribal and other partners' action to restore the Great Lakes.
Federal commitments from the strategy have been identified in the Federal Near-Term Action
Plan and are being implemented. GLNPO is tracking progress towards commitments in the
Federal Near-Term Action Plan.
Highlights of progress include:
. Supported the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force in meeting its requirement to
submit a report that summarizes task force activities and recommendations that
advance the policy of Executive Order 13340.
. Developed an Implementation Framework document which outlines how
implementation and reporting of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Strategy will be accomplished.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Continue to work with partners to develop basin-wide goals and indicators for
the Great Lakes.
. Continue to work with Environment Canada to develop indicators for measuring
the health of the Great Lakes.
Appendix-49
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA USER FEE PROGRAM
In FY 2008, EPA will have several user fee programs in operation. These user fee programs and
proposals are as follows:
Current Fees: Pesticides
The FY 2008 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 2008, the Agency expects to
collect $15 million 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 2008, the Agency expects to collect $10 million 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 Toxic Substances program. 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 $1.8 million in PMN fees in FY 2008
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
rule. The training programs ensure that lead paint abatement is done safely. Fees
Appendix-50
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
collected for this activity are deposited in the U.S. Treasury. EPA estimates that $1
million will be deposited in FY 2008.
• Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fee
This fee is authorized by the Clean Air Act of 1990 and is managed by the Air and
Radiation program. 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 2008, EPA expects to collect $19 million from this fee.
Fee Proposals: Pesticides
• Registration Review Fees
As the Reregi strati on program approaches completion, EPA has initiated a Registration
Review program. EPA will review existing pesticide registrations on a 15-year cycle to
ensure that registered pesticides in the marketplace continue to be safe for use in
accordance with the latest scientific information. Legislative language will be submitted
proposing to collect $32 million in FY 2008 to partially offset the costs of operating this
program 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 the
Pesticides Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) through 2008. Legislative language will
be submitted to allow for the collection of Pesticide Tolerance fees in FY 2008 and the
Administration will submit legislative language proposing to collect $13 million in
Pesticide Tolerance fees in FY 2008.
• Enhanced Registration Services
Legislative language will be submitted proposing to publish a new fee schedule to collect
an additional $12 million in FY 2008 to better align fee collections with program costs.
Currently those who directly benefit from EPA's registration services cover only a
Appendix-51
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
fraction of the costs to operate the program, leaving the general taxpayer to shoulder the
remaining burden.
• Pesticides Maintenance Fee Extension
Under current law, the Agency expects to collect $15 million in Maintenance fees in FY
2008. Legislative language will be submitted to allow the collection of an additional $9
million in order to more closely align fee collections with program costs. The President's
Budget proposes to relieve the burden on the general taxpayer and finance the costs of
operating the Reregi strati on program from those who directly benefit from EPA's
reregi strati on activities.
Fee Proposals: Other
• Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee
Under the current fee structure, the Agency would collect $1.8 million in FY 2008.
Legislative language will be submitted to remove the statutory cap in the Toxic
Substances Control Act on Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fees. In FY 2008, EPA
expects to collect an additional $4 million by removing the statutory cap.
Appendix-52
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
In FY 2008, the Agency begins its twelfth 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.
Three Agency Activities provided in FY 2007 will continue into FY 2008. These are the
Agency's information technology and telecommunications operations, managed by the Office of
Environmental Information, Agency postage costs, managed by the Office of Administration,
and the Agency's core accounting system, managed by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
The Agency's FY 2008 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
2008, 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-53
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
ACRONYMS FOR STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
AEA: Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and Reorganization Plan #3
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act
ADEA: Age Discrimination in Employment Act
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
CRA: Civil Rights Act
CSA: Computer Security Act
CWPPR: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990
Appendix-54
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
CWA: Clean Water Act
CZARA: Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments
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
Appendix-55
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
FOIA: Freedom of Information Act
FPAS: Federal Property and Administration Services Ac
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
Appendix-56
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
MPRSA: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
NAAEC: North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAWCA: North American Wetlands Conservation Act,
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
OWBPA: Older Workers Benefit Protection Act
PBA: Public Building 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
Appendix-57
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
SBREFA: Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SBLRBRERA: Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SICEA: Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act
SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
SPA: Shore Protection Act of 1988
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-58
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2008 STAG CATEGORICAL PROGRAM GRANTS
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
(Dollars in Thousands)
Grant Title
State and Local
Air Quality
Management
Statutory
Authorities
CAA, Section
103
Eligible
Recipients
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
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
addressing
regional haze.
FY 2007
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$2,500.0
FY2008
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
Obj. 1
FY 2008
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$1,000.0
Appendix-59
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
State and Local
Air Quality
Management
Statutory
Authorities
CAA, 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
Eligible Uses
Carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA and
associated
program support
costs, including
monitoring
activities
(section 105);
Coordinating or
facilitating a
multi-
jurisdictional
approach to
carrying out the
traditional
prevention and
control programs
required by the
CAA (sections
103 and 106);
Supporting
training for CAA
section 302(b)
air pollution
control agency
staff (sections
103 and 105);
Supporting
research,
investigative and
demonstration
projects(section
103)
FY 2007
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$182,679.5
FY2008
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 1
FY 2008
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$184,180.0
Appendix-60
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Tribal Air
Quality
Management
Radon
Water Pollution
Control (Section
106)
Nonpoint Source
(NPS - Section
319)
Statutory
Authorities
CAA, Sections
103 and 105;
Tribal
Cooperative
Agreements
(TCA) in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
TSCA, Sections
10 and 306;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 106;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 3 19(h);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
Tribes;
Intertribal
Consortia;
State/ Tribal
College or
University
State Agencies,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Interstate
Agencies
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
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.
Implement EPA-
approved state
and Tribal
nonpoint source
management
programs and
fund priority
projects as
selected by the
state.
FY 2007
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$10,939.5
$8,073.5
$221,661.0
$194,040.0
FY2008
Goal/
Objective
Goal 1,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 1,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. z
Goal 2,
/TU' I
Obj. 2
Goal 2,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. z
FY 2008
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$10,940.0
$8,074.0
$221,664.0
$194,040.0
Appendix-61
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Wetlands
Program
Development
Targeted
Watershed
Grants
Public Water
System
Supervision
(PWSS)
Homeland
Security Grants
Underground
Injection Control
[UIC]
Statutory
Authorities
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 104
(b)(3); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Department of
Interior,
Environment
and Related
Agencies
Appropriation
Act, 2006 Public
Law 109-54.
SDWA,
Section 1443(a);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
SDWA, Section
1442; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
SDWA, Section
1443(b); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Local
Governments,
Tribes,
Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, Non-
Profit
Organizations
States, Local
Governments,
Tribes, Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, Non-
Profit
Organizations
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
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.
Implement and
enforce
regulations that
protect
underground
sources of
drinking water
by controlling
Class I-V
underground
injection wells.
FY 2007
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$16,830.0
$6,930.0
$99,099.0
$4,950.0
$10,890.0
FY2008
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,
/~\"U" "5
Obj. 3
Goal 4,
/~\"U" "5
Obj. 3
Goal 2,
f-\l.: 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 2,
f-\l.: 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 2,
f~\V^' 1
Obj. 1
FY 2008
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$16,830.0
$0.0
$99,100.0
$4,950.0
$10,891.0
Appendix-62
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Beaches
Protection
Hazardous
Waste Financial
Assistance
Brownfields
Statutory
Authorities
BEACH Act of
2000; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
RCRA,
Section 3011;
FY1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
CERCLA, as
amended by the
Small Business
Liability Relief
and Brownfields
Revitalization
Act(P.L. 107-
118);GMRA
(1990);FGCAA.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia, Local
Governments
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
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
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.
FY 2007
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$9,900.0
$103,345.5
$49,494.9
FY2008
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 3,
/~\1_i i
ODJ. 1
/TU' I
Obj. 2
Goal 4,
/~vl-i <•)
UuJ. 2
FY 2008
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$9,900.0
$103,346.0
$49,495.0
Appendix-63
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Underground
Storage Tanks
[UST]
Pesticides
Program
Implementation
Statutory
Authorities
SWDA, as
amended by the
Superfund
Reauthorization
Amendments of
1986 (Subtitle I),
Section 2007(f),
42 U.S.C.
6916(f)(2);
Energy Policy
Act of 2005,
Title XV -
Ethanol and
Motor Fuels,
Subtitle B -
Underground
Storage Tank
Compliance,
Sections 1521-
1533, P.L. 109-
58, 42 U.S.C.
15801; and
implemented by
regulations at
CFR35.330;
Tribal Grants -
P.L. 105-276.
FIFRA, Sections
20 and 23; the
FY1999
Appropriations
Act (PL 105-
276); FY 2000
Appropriations
Act (P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States,
Federally-
Recognized
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Develop and/or
implement state
or Indian UST
program;
provide
assistance to
states to help
them meet their
new
responsibilities
under the Energy
Policy Act of
2005; provide
funding for SEE
enrollees to
work on the
states'
underground
storage tanks
and to support
direct UST
implementation
programs.
Implement the
following
programs
through grants to
states, Tribes,
partners, and
supporters:
Certification and
Training /
Worker
Protection,
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program (ESPP)
Field Activities,
Tribal Program,
and
Pesticide
Environmental
Stewardship
Program.
FY 2007
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$37,566.7
$12,968.9
FY2008
Goal/
Objective
Goal 3,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 4,
/~vl-i 1
UuJ. 1
FY 2008
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$22,274.0
$12,970.0
Appendix-64
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Lead
Toxic
Substances
Compliance
Pesticide
Enforcement
Statutory
Authorities
TSCA, Sections
10 and 404 (g);
FY2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
TSCA, Sections
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, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
States,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
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.
Assist in
developing and
implementing
toxic substances
enforcement
programs for
PCBs, asbestos,
and lead-based
paint
Assist in
implementing
cooperative
pesticide
enforcement
programs
FY 2007
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$13,563.1
$5,098.5
$18,711.0
FY2008
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 5,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 5,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
FY 2008
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$13,564.0
$5,099.0
$18,711.0
Appendix-65
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
National
Environmental
Information
Exchange
Network
(NEIEN, aka
"the Exchange
Network")
Statutory
Authorities
As appropriate,
CAA, Section
103; CWA,
Section 104;
RCRA, Section
8001;FIFRA,
Section 20;
TSCA, Sections
10 and 28;
MPRSA, Section
203; SDWA,
Section 1442;
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); Pollution
Prevention Act
of 1990, Section
6605; FY 2002
Appropriations
Act and FY
2003
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Interstate
Agencies, Tribal
Consortium,
Other Agencies
with Related
Environmental
Information
Activities
Eligible Uses
Assists states
and others to
better integrate
environmental
information
systems, better
enable data-
sharing across
programs, and
improve access
to information.
FY 2007
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$14,850.0
FY2008
Goal/
Objective
Goal 5,
Obj.2
FY 2008
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$12,850.0
Appendix-66
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Pollution
Prevention
Statutory
Authorities
Pollution
Prevention Act
of 1990, Section
6605; TSCA
Section 10; FY
2000
Appropriations
Act(P.L. 106-
74); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Provides
assistance to
states and state
entities (i.e.,
colleges and
universities) and
Federally-
recognized
Tribes and
intertribal
consortia in
order to deliver
pollution
prevention
technical
assistance to
small and
medium-sized
businesses. A
goal of the
program is to
assist businesses
and industries
with identifying
improved
environmental
strategies and
solutions for
reducing waste
at the source.
FY 2007
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$5,940.0
FY2008
Goal/
Objective
Goal 5,
Obj.2
FY 2008
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$5,940.0
Appendix-67
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Sector Program
(previously
Enforcement &
Compliance
Assurance)
Indian General
Assistance
Program
Statutory
Authorities
As appropriate,
CAA, Section
103; CWA,
Section 104;
SWDA, Section
8001;FIFRA,
Section 20;
TSCA, Sections
10 and 28;
MPRSA, Section
203; SDWA,
Section 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,
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.
FY 2007
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$2,227.5
$56,925.0
FY2008
Goal/
Objective
Goal 5,
Obj. 1
Goal 5,
Obj. 3
FY 2008
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$2,228.0
$56,925.0
Appendix-68
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM PROJECTS BY APPROPRIATION
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
FY 2006
Actuals
FY 2007
Pres Bud
FY 2008
Pres Bud
Pres Bud
vs. Pres Bud
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
$8,036.1
$9,647.9
$2,029.6
$0.0
$61,604.3
$61,604.3
$2,311.9
$3,263.4
$86,893.2
$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
$8,259.0
$10,886.0
$2,252.0
$8,388.0
$57,334.0
$65,722.0
$2,120.0
$3,721.0
$92,960.0
($1,000.4)
$613.1
($12.7)
($3,012.0)
$409.5
($2,602.5)
$65.7
$135.1
($2,801.7)
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
$19,650.5
$12,549.6
$13,104.0
$554.4
Enforcement
Forensics Support
$13,044.2
$13,185.2
$15,075.0
$1,889.8
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
$707.8
$12,598.3
$13,306.1
$11,345.1
$578.2
$2,441.4
$18,328.1
$32,692.8
$3,013.8
$49,012.7
$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
$21,884.0 ($19,851.2)
$3,702.0 $186.2
$25,586.0 ($19,665.0)
$20,738.0
$600.0
$4,000.0
$15,430.0
$40,768.0
($3,928.7)
$0.0
$0.0
$198.6
($3,730.1)
$594.0 ($1,485.0)
$66,948.0 ($24,880.1)
Appendix-69
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 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: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Pesticides: Registration of New Pesticides
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing Pesticides
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
Research / Congressional Priorities
Research: Clean Air
Research: Air Toxics
Research: Clean Air
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
Human Health
FY 2006
Actuals
$583.9
$759.9
$1,343.8
$4,412.9
$8,841.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$2,631.7
$2,347.0
$4,978.7
$56,300.5
$18,535.1
$0.0
$17,495.2
$65,242.5
$101,272.8
$52,015.9
$48,233.9
$100,249.8
$33,663.5
$13,264.5
$11,234.3
$15,609.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$442.2
$828.7
$1,270.9
$4,268.0
$70,239.5
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$2,766.1
$2,820.4
$5,586.5
$0.0
$12,274.2
$0.0
$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
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$428.0
$788.0
$1,216.0
$3,499.0
$73,859.0
$3,294.0
$2,115.0
$472.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,881.0
$0.0
$0.0
$81,054.0
$16,908.0
$0.0
$97,962.0
$48,548.0
$56,454.0
$105,002.0
$38,856.0
$15,103.0
$10,131.0
$8,438.0
Pres Bud
vs. Pres Bud
($14.2)
($40.7)
($54.9)
($769.0)
$3,619.5
$3,294.0
$2,115.0
$472.0
($2,766.1)
($2,820.4)
$294.5
$0.0
($12,274.2)
$81,054.0
($548.4)
($65,455.6)
$2,775.8
($694.5)
($534.2)
($1,228.7)
$4,367.5
$119.9
$1,049.8
$55.0
$0.0
$0.0
$72,285.0
$72,285.0
Appendix-70
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Ecosystems
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems (other
activities)
Subtotal, 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
Toxic Research and Prevention
Research: Pesticides and Toxics
Water: Human Health Protection
Drinking Water Programs
Total, Science & Technology
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
FY 2006
Actuals
$0.0
$169,126.0
$169,126.0
$242,898.2
$12,101.5
$2,487.6
$2,761.9
$27,042.4
$32,291.9
$28,343.3
$3,101.9
$764,737.6
$17,710.5
$23,221.1
$0.0
$3,119.4
$89,933.6
$93,053.0
$24,332.1
$11,301.6
$2,374.4
$5,560.8
$8,534.7
$186,088.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$161,312.7
$161,312.7
$228,248.5
$10,552.8
$2,494.6
$0.0
$21,404.9
$23,899.5
$26,223.7
$3,243.1
$788,274.0
$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
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$72,761.0
$0.0
$145,046.0
$217,574.0
$10,737.0
$0.0
$0.0
$22,478.0
$22,478.0
$24,795.0
$3,416.0
$754,506.0
$19,388.0
$26,504.0
$2,800.0
$0.0
$87,690.0
$90,490.0
$24,711.0
$10,186.0
$2,928.0
$4,489.0
$9,865.0
$188,561.0
Pres Bud
vs. Pres Bud
$72,761.0
($161,312.7)
($16,266.7)
($10,674.5)
$184.2
($2,494.6)
$0.0
$1,073.1
($1,421.5)
($1,428.7)
$172.9
($33,768.0)
$261.6
$825.7
$0.0
$0.0
$2,424.4
$2,424.4
($802.7)
($462.6)
$239.3
($732.4)
($3,500.0)
($1,746.7)
Brownflelds
Brownfields
$21,848.2
$24,637.3
$23,450.0
($1,187.3)
Appendix-71
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
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
FY 2006
Actuals
$33,391.6
$2,147.5
$48,154.8
$83,693.9
$83,693.9
$0.0
$27,774.3
$27,774.3
$8,338.9
$172.0
$86,463.1
$86,635.1
$122,748.3
$0.0
$118,560.9
$118,560.9
$41,595.6
$2,655.2
$4,691.5
$12,890.2
$180,393.4
$65,347.2
$22,292.9
$19,251.9
$3,715.9
$3,959.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$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
$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
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$43,926.0
$4,436.0
$39,565.0
$87,927.0
$87,927.0
$131.0
$29,416.0
$29,547.0
$9,786.0
$1,128.0
$92,300.0
$93,428.0
$132,761.0
$810.0
$125,835.0
$126,645.0
$39,688.0
$3,145.0
$3,822.0
$14,366.0
$187,666.0
$0.0
$28,768.0
$21,757.0
$4,457.0
$934.0
Pres Bud
vs. Pres Bud
($1,796.8)
$15.5
($2,135.0)
($3,916.3)
($3,916.3)
$19.8
$636.5
$656.3
$83.8
$141.1
$268.1
$409.2
$1,149.3
$56.8
$5,810.5
$5,867.3
$1,894.5
$641.3
($37.0)
$578.5
$8,944.6
$0.0
$2,370.3
$1,179.9
$146.3
$0.2
Appendix-72
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Geographic Program: Other
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
Lake Pontchartrain
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
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
Information Exchange / Outreach
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency
Coordination
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations
FY 2006
Actuals
$946.0
$2,307.8
$0.0
$1,148.2
$4,725.6
$8,181.6
$7,717.1
$66,064.4
$318.1
$4,961.9
$5,280.0
$43.6
$4,673.8
$4,717.4
$5.0
$1,654.2
$1,659.2
$8,845.1
$20,501.7
$7,418.0
$19,023.2
$26,441.2
$5,695.1
$48,586.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$466.9
$0.0
$978.0
$4,448.4
$3,623.6
$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
$0.0
$3,328.7
$6,268.9
$23,640.0
$5,519.2
$23,464.3
$28,983.5
$6,063.8
$52,142.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$467.0
$1,000.0
$978.0
$3,448.0
$3,149.0
$8,575.0
$9,553.0
$74,511.0
$500.0
$6,406.0
$6,906.0
$99.0
$7,688.0
$7,787.0
$3,380.0
$1.0
$3,381.0
$6,345.0
$24,419.0
$5,429.0
$21,440.0
$26,869.0
$6,203.0
$49,747.0
Pres Bud
vs. Pres Bud
$0.1
$1,000.0
$0.0
($1,000.4)
($474.6)
($475.0)
$415.7
$3,637.5
($700.0)
$806.3
$106.3
$0.0
$544.3
$544.3
$51.3
$1.0
$52.3
$76.1
$779.0
($90.2)
($2,024.3)
($2,114.5)
$139.2
($2,395.7)
Appendix-73
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
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
FY 2006
Actuals
$8,582.4
$18,725.7
$2,498.5
$1,950.4
$11,576.0
$13,914.4
$11,841.6
$123,370.8
$4,229.9
$1,695.8
$7,687.0
$1,707.9
$8,145.2
$23,465.8
$4,198.5
$98,871.4
$103,069.9
$4,289.0
$1,004.4
$10,674.8
$35,237.7
$13,454.0
$3,772.5
$22,671.1
$16,592.7
$4,555.8
$112,252.0
$23,040.8
$70,768.6
$336,980.6
$22,280.0
$42,966.8
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$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
$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
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$15,364.0
$3,261.0
$2,466.0
$12,960.0
$15,728.0
$11,477.0
$117,206.0
$4,022.0
$1,945.0
$5,311.0
$1,831.0
$4,646.0
$17,755.0
$5,583.0
$91,019.0
$96,602.0
$5,260.0
$1,175.0
$11,240.0
$39,366.0
$13,986.0
$3,574.0
$23,866.0
$20,104.0
$4,790.0
$123,361.0
$29,992.0
$74,960.0
$303,728.0
$23,439.0
$40,175.0
Pres Bud
vs. Pres Bud
$0.0
($684.5)
($240.7)
($180.6)
$451.6
$484.6
$41.3
($2,384.8)
($115.0)
$83.8
($1,079.3)
$22.3
($1,415.0)
($2,503.2)
$20.9
($5,788.2)
($5,767.3)
$399.1
($54.8)
$186.3
$1,840.5
$520.1
$53.3
($1,987.6)
$2,549.2
$174.3
$3,680.4
$4,573.7
($8,588.1)
$8,967.9
$1,592.0
($27.5)
Appendix-74
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
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
Energy Policy Act Implementation
LUST/ UST (other activities)
Subtotal, LUST / UST
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
Water: Ecosystems
Great Lakes Legacy Act
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
Wetlands
Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems
FY 2006
Actuals
$496,036.8
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$24,627.9
$39,406.5
$54,507.5
$2,035.3
$120,577.2
$38,425.9
$66,819.2
$12,067.4
$117,312.5
$9,090.4
$41,500.9
$7,350.1
$12,087.0
$17,744.8
$87,773.2
$0.0
$9,042.3
$9,042.3
$9,042.3
$26,771.7
$26,294.4
$19,842.5
$72,908.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$465,776.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$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
$7,985.4
$11,367.6
$21,292.4
$93,018.9
$11,713.7
$0.0
$11,713.7
$11,713.7
$49,600.0
$18,417.2
$20,992.2
$89,009.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$472,294.0
$62,514.0
$41,750.0
$12,114.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,780.0
$118,158.0
$39,573.0
$69,158.0
$13,666.0
$122,397.0
$5,654.0
$45,046.0
$5,890.0
$13,546.0
$19,935.0
$90,071.0
$11,707.0
$12.0
$11,719.0
$11,719.0
$35,000.0
$17,203.0
$21,518.0
$73,721.0
Pres Bud
vs. Pres Bud
$6,518.0
$62,514.0
$41,750.0
$12,114.0
($24,926.3)
($39,767.6)
($51,814.6)
$26.0
($104.5)
($799.3)
$1,270.7
$1,430.9
$1,902.3
($2,082.5)
$409.0
($2,095.4)
$2,178.4
($1,357.4)
($2,947.9)
($6.7)
$12.0
$5.3
$5.3
($14,600.0)
($1,214.2)
$525.8
($15,288.4)
Appendix-75
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
Total, Environmental Program & Management
Inspector General
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
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
FY 2006
Actuals
$3,593.8
$90,252.9
$93,846.7
$10,846.3
$5,480.4
$182,825.7
$188,306.1
$199,152.4
$2,331,934.7
$36,501.5
$36,501.5
$10,800.9
$30,871.3
$41,672.2
$1,938.3
$13,243.5
$11.0
$156.5
FY 2007 FY 2008 Pres Bud
Pres Bud Pres Bud vs. Pres Bud
$2,653.9 $2,830.0 $176.1
$99,121.0 $96,967.0 ($2,154.0)
$101,774.9 $99,797.0 ($1,977.9)
$12,462.4 $12,851.0 $388.6
$7,120.7 $7,121.0 $0.3
$184,466.5 $188,971.0 $4,504.5
$191,587.2 $196,092.0 $4,504.8
$204,049.6 $208,943.0 $4,893.4
$2,306,617.0 $2,298,188.0 ($8,429.0)
$35,100.0 $38,008.0 $2,908.0
$35,100.0 $38,008.0 $2,908.0
$11,385.1 $7,870.0 ($3,515.1)
$28,430.9 $26,931.0 ($1,499.9)
$39,816.0 $34,801.0 ($5,015.0)
$2,323.3 $2,373.0 $49.7
$13,316.0 $7,149.0 ($6,167.0)
$22.2 $22.0 ($0.2)
$142.7 $144.0 $1.3
Appendix-76
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
FY 2006
Actuals
$914.4
$1,081.9
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$1,144.1
$1,309.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,182.0
$1,348.0
Pres Bud
vs. Pres Bud
$37.9
$39.0
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Environmental Justice
Forensics Support
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Subtotal, Enforcement
$785.4
$8,611.7
$568.9
$638.6
$3,600.9
$161,995.4
$9,117.9
$185,318.8
$883.0
$8,502.2
$621.9
$756.7
$4,184.2
$163,650.5
$10,196.9
$188,795.4
$884.0
$9,167.0
$840.0
$757.0
$2,310.0
$161,610.0
$9,843.0
$185,411.0
$1.0
$664.8
$218.1
$0.3
($1,874.2)
($2,040.5)
($353.9)
($3,384.4)
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
$100.4
$100.4
$77.7
$907.4
$985.1
$39.2
$0.0
$40,360.8
$40,400.0
$534.7
$42,020.2
$35.4
$1,883.6
$1,919.0
$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
$0.0
$0.0
$198.0
$1,659.0
$1,857.0
$10,527.0
$6,064.0
$28,689.0
$45,280.0
$594.0
$47,731.0
$155.0
$1,433.0
$1,588.0
($300.0)
($300.0)
$0.0
$285.4
$285.4
($1,744.3)
($3,436.0)
$685.4
($4,494.9)
($0.2)
($4,509.7)
$24.6
$0.6
$25.2
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
$341.0
$792.0
$3.4
Appendix-77
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies
Brownfields Projects
Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
Total, Hazardous Substance Superfund
(Transfer to Office of Inspector General)
(Transfer to Science and Technology)
FY 2006
Actuals
$16,646.2
$16,987.2
$559.4
$624.6
$1,184.0
$2,752.7
$66,365.6
$19,577.1
$5,282.1
$21,783.7
$115,761.2
$3,604.4
$22,210.2
$4,628.0
$26,838.2
$292.0
$205,038.7
$11,115.1
$32,461.2
$667,056.2
$4,989.0
$9,319.5
$929,979.7
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$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
$8,575.4
$0.0
$822,918.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$16,338.0
$17,130.0
$837.0
$606.0
$1,443.0
$3,049.0
$74,956.0
$24,645.0
$5,036.0
$24,306.0
$131,992.0
$3,972.0
$20,081.0
$0.0
$20,081.0
$0.0
$191,880.0
$9,318.0
$31,879.0
$584,836.0
$6,575.0
$0.0
$824,488.0
Pres Bud
vs. Pres Bud
($782.4)
($779.0)
($50.2)
($84.8)
($135.0)
$128.2
$1,011.3
$1,130.7
($234.2)
($1,234.8)
$801.2
$124.8
($1,882.9)
$0.0
($1,882.9)
$0.0
($518.9)
$454.9
$392.4
$3,241.1
($2,000.4)
$0.0
$1,569.1
$1,340,168.4
($13,243.5)
($32,283.4)
$1,258,955.0
($13,316.0)
($27,811.1)
$1,244,706.0
($7,149.0)
($26,126.0)
($14,249.0)
$6,167.0
$1,685.1
Appendix-78
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 2006
Actuals
$481.3
$130.9
$357.3
$760.9
$769.6
$3.0
$1,890.8
$617.2
$11,889.1
$71,175.1
$83,064.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$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
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$688.0
$177.0
$165.0
$1,102.0
$901.0
$3.0
$2,171.0
$660.0
$10,558.0
$58,207.0
$68,765.0
Pres Bud
vs. Pres Bud
($151.1)
$1.1
($195.8)
$87.2
($15.8)
$0.0
($124.4)
$8.7
($32.1)
($0.2)
($32.3)
$86,184.4
$72,759.0
$72,461.0
($298.0)
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
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
$257.8
$1,759.1
$38.8
$12,645.3
$366.1
$828.4
$280.2
$1,826.3
$32.5
$12,964.6
$499.3
$903.1
$291.0
$2,065.0
$34.0
$13,499.0
$490.0
$901.0
$10.8
$238.7
$1.5
$534.4
($9.3)
($2.1)
Appendix-79
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
Energy Policy Act Implementation
Subtotal, 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)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
FY 2006
Actuals
$15,895.5
$9,795.4
$93,549.0
$33,905.5
$905,435.8
$0.0
$0.0
$813,735.3
$49,013.5
$0.0
$1,802,090.1
$360,947.0
$2,266,381.5
$9,707.3
$51,377.9
$19,308.2
$103,364.9
$4,283.1
$15,115.2
$203,807.2
$19,876.7
$13,749.8
$946.1
$219,826.3
$220,772.4
$4,192.6
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$16,506.0
$0.0
$89,119.4
$14,850.0
$687,555.0
$49,500.0
$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
$221,661.0
$5,940.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$17,280.0
$0.0
$89,258.0
$15,500.0
$687,554.0
$35,000.0
$35,000.0
$842,167.0
$10,000.0
$0.0
$1,590,221.0
$0.0
$1,679,479.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$12,850.0
$103,346.0
$4,950.0
$13,564.0
$194,040.0
$18,711.0
$12,970.0
$18,500.0
$203,164.0
$221,664.0
$5,940.0
Pres Bud
vs. Pres Bud
$774.0
$0.0
$138.6
$650.0
($1.0)
($14,500.0)
($14,500.0)
$667.0
($14,750.0)
($990.0)
($28,924.0)
$0.0
($28,785.4)
$0.0
$0.1
($2,000.0)
$0.5
$0.0
$0.9
$0.0
$0.0
$1.1
$0.0
$3.0
$3.0
$0.0
Appendix-80
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
Energy Policy Act Implementation
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
(other activities)
Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development
Total, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
Not Specified
Subtotal, (no Program Area specified)
Total, Rescission of Prior Year Funds
FY 2006
Actuals
$98,590.8
$8,577.4
$1,938.9
$225,269.8
$14,301.8
$6,347.5
$11,723.9
$60,086.9
$10,591.5
$0.0
$14,328.1
$14,328.1
$1,382.1
$11,136.7
$13,360.5
$3,409,572.7
$0.0
$1,143,191.2
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$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
$37,566.7
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$2,797,448.0
$0.0
$1,089,183.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$99,100.0
$8,074.0
$2,228.0
$185,180.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$10,940.0
$56,925.0
$10,891.0
$22,274.0
$0.0
$22,274.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$2,744,450.0
($5,000.0)
$1,059,971.0
Pres Bud
vs. Pres Bud
$1.0
$0.5
$0.5
$0.5
($6,930.0)
$0.5
$0.5
$0.0
$1.0
($15,292.7)
$0.0
($15,292.7)
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
($52,998.0)
($5,000.0)
($29,212.6)
$0.0
$0.0
($5,000.0)
($5,000.0)
Appendix-81
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
LONG TERM INITIATIVES
EPA will conduct a number of long term initiatives designed to improve efficiency, streamline
operations, and enhance customer service. Successful implementation of these initiatives will
require thoughtful coordination and take into account the Agency's overall mission and any
potentially impacted employees and contractors. The following sections provide a brief
description of these initiatives:
Laboratory Infrastructure Requirements Study
The Agency will conduct a comprehensive review of laboratory infrastructure requirements
through 2011. This will be a collaborative effort to identify enterprise-wide efficiencies.
Achieving these results will require coordination and integration into other ongoing studies.
Reviewing Voluntary Programs
The Agency will conduct a thorough evaluation of all voluntary programs. This Agency-wide
study will identify priorities, methods to maximize effectiveness, and opportunities to streamline
operations while meeting Agency goals and objectives. Senior leaders are now developing
workgroups to evaluate the Agency's voluntary programs and identify opportunities for
organizational efficiencies and optimize reasonable results.
Aligning International Activities
The Agency will review and improve coordination on all international environmental activities.
This will be a comprehensive review of the Agency-wide international strategic objectives and
their relation to domestic and foreign policy objectives. Information from this review will be
used to identify and streamline areas of overlap and create efficiencies. The Agency is laying
out a process for engaging senior leaders in identifying international activities planned or
currently underway.
Reducing Reporting Burden for States
States have expressed concerns about their growing reporting burden. In order to better
understand the burden of regulatory report requirements on state environmental protection
programs, EPA is currently working with states to review EPA reporting requirements affecting
the states.
Reducing Reporting Burden for Tribes
The Agency has initiated a review of all Tribal reporting requirements. In order to successfully
reduce reporting requirements, project leads will inventory all current requirements, analyze
associated directives and regulations, and identify opportunities for consolidations or
eliminations. Project leads are developing a current inventory of all reporting requirements
which will be the first step in this effort.
Appendix-82
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Energy Efficiencies Plan
EPA's Energy Conservation Plan is addressing energy and energy cost reductions for all
reporting Agency facilities (i.e. facilities that pay utilities directly rather than indirectly as part of
a lease or other agreement) from FY 2006 through FY 2015. The current energy conservation
goal for FY 2008 is a 10% reduction from EPA's FY 2003 baseline. The Energy Conservation
Plan includes an implementation plan and schedule of projects through FY 2010.
In general, laboratory operations require more energy use per square foot than many other types
of facilities. Since EPA can directly control its utility costs at the 29 "reporting" laboratories, the
Agency is targeting these facilities for energy savings. For the upcoming FY 2008 budget year,
the Agency will develop BTU (energy) usage goals for the 29 reporting labs, based on past
energy use, projects under design/under construction, re-commissioning underway etc. Each
reporting lab will be given a BTU target and fuel cost predictions, and a total utility cost budget.
The Agency cannot however directly impact utility costs at its office locations. Under standard
General Services Administration office leases and occupancy agreements, utility costs are an
integral part of the rent paid.
EPA Long Term Space Consolidation Plan
The Agency occupies approximately ten (10) million square feet of space in 191 facilities,
staffed by about 25,000 personnel in fifty states and four territories. The intent of the Long Term
Space Consolidation Plan is to examine closely our space usage at these locations; explore ways
to use our space more efficiently; and seek potential short- and long-term savings while keeping
our inventory in line with generally accepted space and utilization rates. The Agency will form a
space planning workgroup that includes Regional and Headquarters representation, to meet
periodically to discuss the development of the comprehensive plan and implementation.
The workgroup will develop implementation budget estimates on a facility by facility case,
depending on the location, number of personnel, and the size of the facility being reviewed,
among other factors. The plan will provide the workgroup with: 1) the information required for
discussions with the affected Program and Regional offices; and 2) the process for meeting
inventory space requirements, including conducting/updating space inventories, validating
personnel counts and conducting lease and occupancy agreement reviews.
Shared Services Centers Project
EPA will examine methods to develop more efficient and cost-effective human resource, grants
and contracts management services throughout the Agency. The Centers plan will allow the
Agency to increase efficiency, reduce long-term costs, and maintain a high quality of services,
while ensuring that other opportunities exist for potentially impacted work force. These efforts
are part of a broader government trend, based on business models, to provide more standardized
and efficient services.
Appendix-83
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Centralized IT Service Review
The Agency is working to develop and implement an Agencywide consolidation and
centralization effort for our core information technology services and contracts. In recent years,
new tools have become available that allow for consolidation of key aspects of IT services and
solutions.
The services targeted in this effort include email services, access to data files, telephone
communications, and Enterprise Content Management System (ECMS). The end result will be
changes to the Agency's IT environment, including the ability to: 1) manage key IT services as a
Managed Service, with strict service level agreements, 2) use the power of competition to control
costs in a highly competitive environment, and 3) hold vendors and contractors accountable for
providing consistently excellent services.
Appendix-84
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EXPECTED BENEFITS OF THE PRESIDENT'S E-GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES
Business Gateway
The Business Gateway initiative benefits EPA by supporting the Agency's emphasis on the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. EPA has many initiatives, activities, and
services directed at small business needs. Business.gov provides a one-stop compliance tool
enabling these small and emerging businesses access to compliance rules, regulations and
tools across the Federal government. Business Gateway augments EPA's small business
activities function by providing the following benefits:
• Advocating consideration of small business regulatory issues and regulatory
relief on a government-wide scale;
• Providing plain-English compliance guidance, fact sheets and links to
checklists for small businesses; and
• Maintaining an extensive website with numerous links to other internal and
external assistance sources.
EPA anticipates the same benefits from Business Gateway in 2008 as stated for 2007.
Fiscal
Year
2007
2008
Account Code
020-00-0 1 - 1 6-04-0 1 00-24-3 05- 1 09
020-00-01-16-04-0100-24
Budget
(in thousands)
$328.8
$120.0
eRulemaking
EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment, implemented according to the
following five goals: Clean Air and Global Climate Change, Clean and Safe Water, Land
Preservation and Restoration, Healthy Communities and Ecosystems, and Compliance and
Environmental Stewardship. EPA promulgates and takes enforcement actions on regulations
focusing on various environmental protection standards (e.g., safe drinking water, pesticides,
global climate change, air toxics, radionuclides, wastewater treatment, solid and hazardous
waste, Superfund sites). EPA also conducts research on the adverse effects of pollution and
on methods and equipment to reduce and mitigate pollution; gathers information on
environmental quality and compliance with regulations and standards; and assists entities in
complying with standards and regulations via grants, technical assistance and other means.
The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) has simplified the public's participation in
the rulemaking process and made EPA's internal rulemaking business processes more
transparent. FDMS provides EPA's 1,000 registered users with a secure, centralized
electronic repository for managing the Agency's rulemaking development via distributed
management of data and robust role-based user access. EPA posts all regulatory and non-
regulatory documents (e.g., Federal Register documents, supporting analyses, and public
comments) in Regulations.gov for public viewing, downloading, and commenting. From
Appendix-85
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
January 2006 to the current date, Regulations.gov posted 1,817 Federal Register documents
and received 3,553 comments for EPA. In addition, EPA has posted 16,881 documents
supporting rulemaking and non-rulemaking actions and posted an additional 22,879
comments that the public provided to EPA in paper, email, or another format.
EPA expects continued benefits over the next five years through participation and reliance on
FDMS and Regulations.gov.
Fiscal Year
2007
2008
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-0060-24-306-1 13
020-00-0 1 0 1 6-04-0060-24
Budget
(in thousands)
$615.0
$535.0
Geospatial LoB
The Geospatial Line of Business (GeoLoB) is expected to benefit EPA by providing
opportunities to improve operations in several areas. The investments made in FY 2007 and
FY 2008 should provide the necessary planning and coordination for continued benefits to
EPA in FY 2009 and beyond.
EPA's mission requires the use of a broad range of data on places (e.g. facilities, roads,
wastesites, etc.) and geographic features (wetlands, sols, hydrography, etc.) to support
Agency decisions. A great deal of this data is contained in 30 critical datasets, as identified
in OMB circular A-16. The GeoLob Program Management Office will help EPA provide the
necessary planning and coordination across the A-16 data stewards to complete these critical
data sets.
EPA is moving to a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) that is expected to facilitate
flexible access to data to support a variety of business applications. Implementing a SOA
requires the establishment of common standards and policies. The GeoLoB will advance the
establishment of a Federal Geospatial Segment Architecture as part of the Federal Enterprise
Architecture that can expose geospatial data and capabilities across vertical lines of business.
In the process of establishing the geospatial segment architecture, the GeoLoB will promote
the implementation of standards and policies to support an SOA.
EPA's geospatial program has increased the efficiency of affected activities by consolidating
procurements for data and tools into multi-year enterprise licenses. Participation in the
GeoLoB is expected to continue providing EPA opportunities to share approaches on
procurement consolidation.
EPA benefits from Geospatial LoB in FY 2008 are anticipated to be the same as those
described for FY 2007.
Appendix-86
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Fiscal Year
2007
2008
Account Code
No UPI code prior to FY08
020-00-01-16-04-3100-24
Budget
(in thousands)
$42.0
$43.2
Grants.gov
The Grants.gov initiative benefits EPA and its grant programs by providing a single location
to publish grant opportunities and application packages. Grants.gov serves as a single site for
the grants community to apply for grants using common forms, processes, and systems. The
grants community benefits from savings in postal costs, paper and envelopes. Grants.gov has
already begun to reduce the large number of disparate electronic and paper-based grant
applicant/recipient interactions. The deployment of Grants.gov's "Find and Apply" feature
has enabled agencies and the grants community to transform an 80% paper-based process
into process into a potentially 100% electronic process.
EPA built and maintains a system for collecting electronic grant applications received from
Grants.gov and these applications are easily processed through the EPA grant award system.
During FY 2006, EPA posted 197 grant opportunities on Grants.gov and linked 100% of
those competitive opportunities to electronic application packages. EPA received 2,271
applications via Grants.gov in 2006, a 750% increase over the number of applications
received in 2005.
EPA benefits from Grants.gov in FY08 are anticipated to be the same as those described for
FY07.
.Fiscal Year
2007
2008
Account Code
020-00-04-00-04- 1 3 1 6-24-402- 1 6
020-00-04-00-04-1316-24
Budget
(in thousands)
$520.5
$536.1
E-Travel
The intent of the E-Travel project is to provide EPA more efficient and effective travel
management services. The agency is expected to benefit from this effort by utilizing cross-
government purchasing agreements and improved functionality benefits through streamlined
travel policies and processes. Other benefits include enhancing security and privacy controls
and Agency oversight and audit capabilities. EPA employees would also benefit from
integrated travel planning. EPA and GSA are currently discussing a GovTrip
implementation date.
EPA benefits from eTravel in FY08 are anticipated to be the same as those described for
FY07.
Appendix-87
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Fiscal
Year
2007
2008
Account Code
020-00-0 1 -0 1 -03 -0220-24-40 1 - 1 22
020-00-01-01-03-0221-24
Estimated Fee Amount
(in thousands)
$1,455.0
$1,088.7
Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE)
The Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) is comprised of nine government-wide
automated applications and/or databases that have contributed to streamlining the acquisition
business process across the government. EPA leverages the usefulness of these systems via
electronic linkages between EPA's acquisition systems and the IAE shared systems. Other
IAE systems are not linked directly to EPA's acquisition systems, but benefit the Agency's
contracting staff and vendor community as stand-alone resources.
EPA's acquisition systems use data provided by the Central Contractor Registry (CCR) to
replace internally maintained vendor data. Contracting officers can download vendor-
provided representation and certification information electronically, via the Online
Representations and Certifications (ORCA) database, allowing vendors to submit this
information once rather than separately for every contract proposal. Contracting officers are
able to access the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) via links in the acquisition systems to
identify vendors that are debarred from receiving contract awards.
Contracting officers can also link to the Wage Determination Online (WDOL) to obtain
information required under the Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon Act. EPA's
acquisition systems link to the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation (FPDS-
NG) for submission of contract actions at the time of award. FPDS-NG provides public
access to government-wide contract information. The Electronic Subcontracting Reporting
System (eSRS) supports vendor submission of subcontracting data for contracts identified as
requiring this information. EPA submits synopses of procurement opportunities over
$25,000 to the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website, where the information is
accessible to the public. Vendors use this website to identify business opportunities in
federal contracting.
Fiscal Year
2007
2008
Account Code
020-00-0 1 - 1 6-04-023 0-24-405-1 46
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
Budget
(in thousands)
$119.7
$127.2
E-Authentication
Public trust in the security of information exchanged over the Internet plays a vital role in the
E-Government (E-Gov) transformation. E-Authentication is setting the standards for the
identity proofing of individuals and businesses, based on risk of online services used. The
initiative focuses on meeting the authentication business needs of the E-Gov initiatives and
building the necessary infrastructure to support common, unified processes and systems for
Appendix-88
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
government-wide use. This will build the trust that must be an inherent part of every online
exchange between citizens and the government.
The web-based E-Authentication that EPA is currently implementing is for Central Data
Exchange Web Portal (CDX-Web) at level 3. CDX-Web provides E-Authentication and other
services for back-end EPA systems. The current plan is to offer production level 3 E-
Authentication for the end-users of the system capable of implementing PKI-based digital
signatures.
The initiative benefits EPA by providing E-Authentication expertise, guidance, and
documentation, including project planning and reporting templates, to enable EPA to achieve
production implementation of E-Authentication for its Central Data Exchange Node (CDX-
Node) of the EPA-State Exchange Network (EN) and its Central Data Exchange Web Portal
(CDX-Web) by the end of FY 2007. EPA is taking advantage of the availability of PKI-
certificates provided through the Federation to offer production level 3 E-Authentication.
EPA benefits from E-Authentication in FY 2008 are anticipated to be the same as those
described for FY 2007.
Fiscal Year
2007
2008
Account Code
—
020-00-01-16-04-0250-24
Budget
(in thousands)
$0.0
$65.2
Enterprise Human Resource Integration Initiative
The Enterprise Human Resource Integration's (EHRI) Electronic Official Personnel Folder
(eOPF) is designed to provide a consolidated repository that digitally documents the
employment actions and history of individuals employed by the Federal Government. EPA
plans to migrate from a manual Official Personnel File (OFF) process to the Federal eOPF
system by October 2007. This initiative is expected to benefit the Agency by reducing
contract support cost for file room maintenance and improving customer service for
employees and productivity for FIR specialists. The 24/7 access to view and print official
personnel documents allows employees more independence and frees HR specialists from
manually filing, retrieving or mailing personnel actions to employees.
EPA benefits from EHRI in FY 2008 are anticipated to be the same as those described for FY
2007.
Fiscal Year
2007
2008
Account Code
No UPI code prior to FY08
020-00-01-16-01-1219-21
Estimated Fee Amount
(in thousands)
$3,000.0
$406.0
Appendix-89
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Recruitment One-Stop (ROS)
Recruitment One-Stop (ROS) simplifies the process of locating and applying for Federal
jobs. USAJOBS is a standard job announcement and resume builder. It is the one-stop for
Federal job seekers to search for and apply to positions on-line. This integrated process
benefits citizens by providing a more efficient process to locate and apply for jobs, and
assists Federal agencies in hiring top talent in a competitive marketplace. The Recruitment
One-Stop initiative has increased job seeker satisfaction with the Federal job application
process and is helping us to locate highly-qualified candidates and improve response times to
applicants.
By integrating with ROS, the Agency has eliminated the need for applicants to maintain
multiple user IDs to apply for Federal jobs through various systems. The vacancy
announcement format has been improved for easier readability. The system can maintain up
to five resumes per applicant, which allows them to create and store resumes tailored to
specific skills — this is an improvement from our previous system that only allowed one
resume per applicant. In addition, ROS has a notification feature that keeps applicants
updated on the current status of the application, and provides a link to the agency website for
detailed information. This self-help ROS feature allows applicants to obtain up-to-date
information on the status of their application upon request.
EPA benefits from Recruitment One-Stop in FY 2008 are anticipated to be the same as those
described for FY 2007.
Fiscal
Year
2007
2008
Account Code
No UPI code prior to FY08
020-00-01-16-04-0010-24
Estimated Fee Amount
(in thousands)
$87.5
$102.2
eTraining
The President's Management Agenda encourages e-learning to improve training, efficiency
and financial performance. EPA recently exercised its option to renew the current
Interagency Agreement with OPM-GoLearn that provides licenses to online training for
employees. EPA purchased 5,000 licenses to prevent any interruption in service to current
users. Through this agreement, EPA gains efficiency through economy of scale, while
developing its own learning management and reporting system. EPA expects to have its own
learning management system in place by the end of 2008, developed through the E-Training
initiative.
EPA benefits from eTraining in FY 2008 are anticipated to be the same as those described for
FY2007.
Appendix-90
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Fiscal
Year
2007
2008
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24-403-250
020-00-01-16-1217-24
Estimated Fee Amount
(in thousands)
$80.0
$80.0
Human Resources LoB
The Human Resources Line of Business (HR LoB) provides Federal government the
infrastructure to support pay-for-performance systems, modernized HR systems, and the core
functionality necessary for the strategic management of human capital.
The HR LoB offers common solutions that will enable Federal agencies to work more
effectively, and it provides managers and executives across the Federal government
improved means to meet strategic objectives. EPA is expected to benefit by ensuring it
supports an effective program management activity, which should deliver more tangible
results in 2009 and beyond.
Fiscal Year
2007
2008
Account Code
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24-403-250
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
Budget
(in thousands)
$65.2
$65.2
Financial Management Line of Business
In FY 2007 EPA will complete the planning and acquisition phase of its Financial System
Modernization Project (FSMP) and will begin migration to a shared service provider. This
work will benefit from the migration guidance developed in FY 2006, including the use of
performance metrics developed for service level agreements and the use of standard business
processes developed for four core financial management sub-functions: Payments, Receipts,
Funds and Reporting. The Agency expects to benefit from the use of the shared service
provider for operations and maintenance of the new system in the future.
Fiscal Year
2007
2008
Account Code
020-00-01-01-04-1 100-24-402-124
020-00-01-01-04-1100-24
Budget (in thousands)
$83.3
$44.4
Grants LoB
The Grants Management Line of Business (GM LoB) is creating a common solution to grants
management that will promote citizen access, customer service, and agency financial and
technical stewardship. The initiative focuses on developing a standardized and streamlined
approach to grants management across the Federal government as required under Public Law
106-107, Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999. The
Appendix-91
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
initiative also seeks to consolidate over 100 grants management systems deployed at 26
grant-making agencies.
Benefits from this initiative may include:
• shared costs of system development and maintenance as well as modernization
and enhancement
• increased efficiencies through automation
• reduced technical assistance needs
• leveraged training resources
• development of government-wide standards.
EPA benefits from Grants LoB in FY 2008 are anticipated to be the same as those described
for FY 2007.
Fiscal Year
2007
2008
Account Code
020-00-04-00-04- 1 3 00-24- 1 08-025
020-00-04-00-04-1300-24
Budget
(in thousands)
$60.1
$59.3
Budget Formulation and Execution (BFE) LoB
The BFE LoB task force is currently working on a ten year implementation plan and
therefore benefits in FY 2007 and FY 2008 cannot be identified at this time.
Fiscal Year
2007
9008
Account Code
Code not established
Budget (in thousands)
$75.0
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
• The development of common cost efficiency and service level metrics for Desktop/Seat
Management and Support.
• The development of a Desktop/Seat Management and Support baseline using the
common metrics.
In FY 2008, the IOI LoB will continue to grow to encompass the other service delivery areas,
namely Data Centers and Networks.
Fiscal Year
2007
2008
Account Code
No UPI code prior to FY08
020-00-02-00-04-3300-24
Budget
(in thousands)
$20.0
$20.0
Appendix-93
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Discontinued Programs
Appendix-94
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Research: Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Enhance Societies Capacity for Sustainability through Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2006
Actuals
$2,761.9
$2,761.9
6.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program10 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 350 environmental technologies since 1995. An active community of nearly 500
collaborating stakeholders assists 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.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2007, EPA funding for the verification centers was discontinued. Workforce and
associated resources were shifted to the Sustainability research program where they 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 EPA's Enhance Science and Research objective. Research
milestones are identified in the program's multi-year planning documents, but currently there are
no PART performance measures for this specific program project.
' For more information, see: http://www.epa.gov/etv.
Appendix-95
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; CWA; FIFRA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SARA; TSCA.
Appendix-96
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 2006
Actuals
$4,628.0
$4,628.0
5.5
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)11 program conducted high-quality
field demonstrations of remediation technologies at sites that pose high risks to human health and
the environment.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2007, resources for the SITE program were discontinued. 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 EPA's Enhance Science and Research objective. Currently,
there are no PART performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding. The SITE program concluded demonstration of
innovative remediation, monitoring, and measurement approaches in FY 2007.
• Workyears associated with the SITE program were redirected to land protection and
restoration research in FY 2007.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
' For more information about EPA's SITE program, see http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/
Appendix-97
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training
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 2006
Actuals
$1,382.1
$1,382.1
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres
Budv.
FY 2007 Pres
Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
NOTE: Total Budget Authority/Obligations number represents obligations from previous appropriation. This
program did not receive appropriations in FY 2006.
Program Project Description:
Section 104(g)(l) of the Clean Water Act authorizes funding for the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operator On-site Assistance Training program. This program targets small publicly-owned
wastewater treatment plants, with a discharge of less than 5,000,000 gallons per day. Federal
funding for this program is administered through grants to states, often in cooperation with
educational institutions or non-profit agencies. In most cases, assistance is administered through
an environmental training center.
The goal of the program is to provide direct on-site assistance to operators at these small
wastewater treatment facilities. The assistance focuses on issues such as wastewater treatment
plant capacity, operation training, maintenance, administrative management, financial
management, trouble-shooting, and laboratory operations.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Highlights:
There is no request for this program in FY 2008.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
Appendix-98
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
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 2006
Actuals
$11,136.7
$11,136.7
0.0
FY 2007
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008 Pres Bud
V.
FY 2007 Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
NOTE: Total Budget Authority/Obligations number represents obligations from previous appropriation. This
program did not receive appropriations in FY 2006.
Program Project Description:
Under authority of Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act, EPA makes grants to a wide
variety of recipients, including states, Tribes, state water pollution control agencies, interstate
agencies, and other nonprofit institutions, organizations, and individuals to promote the
coordination of environmentally beneficial activities. This competitive funding vehicle is used
by EPA's partners to further the Agency's goals of providing clean and safe water. The program
is designed to fund a broad range of projects, including: innovative water efficiency programs,
research, training and education, demonstration, best management practices, stormwater
management planning, and innovative permitting programs and studies related to the causes,
effects, extent, and prevention of pollution.
FY 2008 Activities and Performance Highlights:
There is no request for this program in FY 2008.
FY 2008 Change from FY 2007 President's Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
Appendix-99
-------
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2008 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)
Performance Databases:
Emissions Tracking System (ETS) - SCh 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/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 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 2008 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 2008 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 2008 Performance Measure:
• 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 2008 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:
AOS: 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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Millions of tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) reduced since 2000 from mobile
sources. (PART measure)
• Millions of tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
(PART measure)
• Tons of particular matter (PM 10) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources (PART
measure)
• Tons of particular matter (PM 2.5) reduced since 2000 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.
10
-------
The NONROAD emission inventory model is a software tool for predicting emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxides from
small and large off road vehicles, equipment, and engines. Inputs to the model include fleet
composition, activity and temporal information.
Certain mobile source information is updated annually. Inputs are updated annually only if there
is a rationale and readily available source of annual data. Generally, Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT), the mix of VMT by type of vehicle (Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-types),
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
11
-------
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
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 2008 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)
12
-------
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
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.htmltfnti. 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.html# 1999.
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
13
-------
Hazardous Air Pollutants), can project future emissions, by adjusting stationary source emission
data to account for growth and emission reductions resulting from emission reduction scenarios
such as the implementation of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards.
Once the EMS-HAP process has been performed, the EPA would tox-weight the inventory by
"weighting" the emissions for each pollutant with the appropriate health risk criteria. This would
be accomplished through a multi-step process. Initially, pollutant by pollutant values would be
obtained from the NEI for the current year and the baseline year (1990/93). Conversion of actual
tons for each pollutant for the current year and the baseline year to "toxicity-weighted" tons
would be accomplished by multiplying the appropriate values from the health criteria database
such as the unit risk estimate (URE) or lifetime cancer risk (defined at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/gloss.htm#rfc) to get the noncancer tons. These toxicity-weighted
values act as a surrogate for risk and allow EPA to compare the toxicity-weighted values against
a 1990/1993 baseline of toxicity-weighted values to determine the percentage reduction in risk
on an annual basis
Complete documentation on development of the NEI for HAPs can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html. For more information and references on EMS-
HAP, go to the following web sites: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htmtfaspen and
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
(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
14
-------
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.
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
15
-------
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
the data limitations and the error estimates in the 1999 NEI for HAPs, please refer to the
discussion of Information Quality Guidelines in the documentation at:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html#haps99 .
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.
16
-------
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.html#L 10
New/Improved Data or Systems: The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs are a significant
improvement over the baseline NTI because of the added facility-level detail (e.g., stack heights,
latitude/longitude locations), making it more useful for dispersion model input. Future
inventories (2002 and later years) are expected to improve significantly because of increased
interest in the NEI for HAPs by regulatory agencies, environmental interests, and industry, and
the greater potential for modeling and trend analysis. During the development of the 1999 NEI
for HAPs, all primary data submitters and reviewers were required to submit their data and
revisions to EPA in a standardized format using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX).
For more information on CDX, please go the following web site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html
Beginning in 2006, the toxicity-weighted emission inventory data will also be used as a
measurement to predict exposure and risk to the public. This measure will utilize ambient
monitoring of air toxics as a surrogate for population exposure and compare these values with
health benchmarks to predict risks.
References:
17
-------
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
Information on the Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
EMS-HAP: http://epa.gov/scramQ01/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
18
-------
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Number of additional homes (new and existing) 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.
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
19
-------
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
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Number of people taking all essential actions to reduce 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
20
-------
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
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.
21
-------
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
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.
22
-------
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),
Healthy People 2010 (http://www.healthypeople.gov/ last accessed 12/21/2005).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• 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.
23
-------
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• 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.
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 2008 Performance Measure:
24
-------
• 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.
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.
25
-------
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Remaining US consumption of HCFCs, measured in tons of ozone depleting
potential (ODP) (PART measure)
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.
26
-------
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
Protocol. See http://www.unmfs.org/ for more information about the Multilateral Fund. Quality
Assurance Plan, USEPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, July 2002
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 4
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• 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
emissions reduction goals and accomplishments for the voluntary climate program using
27
-------
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-CO2 emissions baselines. A baseline is the
"business-as-usual" case" without the impact of EPA's voluntary climate programs. Baseline
data for carbon emissions related to energy use comes from the Energy Information Agency
(EIA) and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM) of the U.S. electric power sector. These
data are used for both historical and projected greenhouse gas emissions and electricity
generation, independent of partners' information to compute emissions reductions from the
baseline and progress toward annual goals. The projections use a "Reference Case" for
assumptions about growth, the economy, and regulatory conditions. Baseline data for non-carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions, including nitrous oxide and other high global warming potential gases,
are maintained by EPA. The non-CO2 data are compiled with input from industry and also
independently from partners' information.
Data collected by EPA's voluntary programs include partner reports on facility- specific
improvements (e.g. space upgraded, kilowatt-hours (kWh) reduced), national market data on
shipments of efficient products, and engineering measurements of equipment power levels and
usage patterns
Baseline information is discussed at length in the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002. The report
includes a complete chapter dedicated to the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory (sources, industries,
emissions, volumes, changes, trends, etc.). A second chapter addresses projected greenhouse
gases in the future (model assumptions, growth, sources, gases, sectors, etc.)
U.S. Department of State. 2002. "U.S. Climate Action 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.
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.
28
-------
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.
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 5
29
-------
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air pollutant sources based on
the risk they pose to human health (PART Measure)
• Percent of 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: EPA will track these program outputs annually using an internal
database.
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of the Clean Air Research Program's long-term goals, the program annually
develops a list of key research milestones and outputs in support of the Multi-Year Plan that are
scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is finalized by the start of the
fiscal year, and no changes are made after this point. The program then tracks quarterly the
progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-determined schedules and
milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from the original list that are
successfully completed on-time. Additionally, the Clean Air research program includes in this
metric completion of follow-up recommendations from external peer reviews.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual milestones be
clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORE) by the start of each fiscal year. Progress
toward completing these activities is monitored by ORE) management.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research milestones and
outputs being measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program
reviews are used to measure research quality and impact.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Air Toxics Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/airtox.pdf (last accessed
January 3, 2007)
Particulate Matter Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/pm.pdf (last
accessed January 3, 2007)
30
-------
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2008 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
approaches including effective treatment and source water protection
• The percentage of the population in Indian country served by community water systems
receiving drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards
• The percentage of community water systems that will provide drinking water that meets
all applicable health-based standards in person months
• Percent of community water systems that meet all applicable health-based drinking
water standards through approaches that include effective treatment and source water
protection (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
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. OGWDW is now working with the states to complete a
2006 data quality review and plan. 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
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
OGWDW Information 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
32
-------
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 more accurately
quantifying data quality and should be better able to estimate the impact on national compliance
with health-based drinking water standards. OGWDW also is working with states to develop a
data quality objective for these data to better gauge progress toward data quality improvement.
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.
33
-------
Second, more states (as of January 2007, 53 States, Tribes, and territories are using
SDWIS/STATE) will use SDWIS/STATE,3 a software information system jointly designed by
states and EPA, to support states as they implement the drinking water program.
Third, EPA has modified SDWIS/FED to (1) simplify the database, (2) minimize data entry
options resulting in complex software, (3) enforce Agency data standards, and (4) ease the flow
of data to EPA through a secure data exchange environment incorporating modern technologies,
all of which will improve the accuracy of the data. In 2006, full use of SDWIS/FED for
receiving state reports will be implemented. Data will be stored in a data warehouse system that
is optimized for analysis, data retrieval, and data integration from other data sources. It will
improve the program's ability to more efficiently use information to support decision-making
and effectively manage the program.
Finally, EPA, in partnership with the states, is developing information modules on other drinking
water programs: the Source Water Protection Program, the Underground Injection Control
Program (UIC), and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. These modules will be
integrated with SDWIS to provide a more comprehensive data set with which to assess the
nation's drinking water supplies, a key component of the goal. Agreement will shortly 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
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
* These are internal documents maintained by EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Please call 202-564-3751 for
further information.
34
-------
• PWSS SDWIS/FED Quality Assurance Manual
• Various SDWIS/FED User and System Guidance Manuals (includes data entry
instructions, data On-line Data Element Dictionary-a database application, Error Code
Data Base (ECDB) - a database application, users guide, release notes, etc.) Available on
the Internet at
• Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet at
Web site addresses
• OGWDW Internet Site and contains
access to the information systems and various guidance, manuals, tools, and reports.
• Sites of particular interest are:
contains information for users to
better analyze the data, and
contains reporting guidance, system and
user documentation and reporting tools for the SDWIS/FED system.
FY 2007 Performance Measure:
• The percentage of community water systems that have undergone a sanitary survey
within the past 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
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.
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.gov/safewater/mdbp/pdf/sansurv/sansurv.pdf
35
-------
Performance data for this measure will be compiled 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.
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
36
-------
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 2008 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.
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.
37
-------
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/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 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 NIMS 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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of state-monitored shellfish-growing acres impacted by anthropogenic
sources that are approved or conditionally approved for use.
Performance Database: There is no database currently available, although one is under
development (see below)2. In the past, data to support this measure came from surveys of
States that are members of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), conducted by
NOAA at 5-year intervals and periodic updates requested from the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation
Conference (most recent, 2003 2005 data released in 2004 20063).
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 FDA4.
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.
38
-------
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 19955 and the states' baseline (the ISSC is considering the most appropriate baseline
year) and most current year data. State summary information can then be used to track trends
relevant to the performance measure, with the 1995 data as against 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:
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006 - 2011 EPA Strategic Plan. Washington,
D.C. Pre-publication Copy, September 29, 2006. http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm
2. Kracker, L.M., Comar P.O., Meaburn, G.M., and K Murugesan. 2005. SIMS: A Shellfish
Information Management System for Molluscan Shellfish. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOSNCCOS 17. 53 pp.
3. Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference. Analysis of Classified Shellfish Waters 1985-
2005. Columbia, South Carolinia. September 2006. http://www.issc.org
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish 2005. Washington D.C.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/nss3-toc.html
5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1997. The 1995 National
Shellfish Register of Classified Growing Waters. Silver Spring, MD: Office of Ocean
Resources Conservation and Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.
398 pp.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Reduce the percentage of women of child-bearing age having mercury levels in blood
above the level of concern identified by the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES).
Performance Database: There is no publicly accessible database that contains this information.
39
-------
Rather, the information is reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
every two years. The latest report is the Third National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals, which presents findings for the years 2001 and 2002, and was
published in 2005. In the report, CDC reported that 5.7% of the women of child-bearing age
have mercury blood levels above the level of concern.1
Data Source: CDC's National Center for Health Statistics conducts the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in which chemicals or their metabolites are measured
in blood and urine samples from a random sample of participants. NHANES is a series of
surveys designed to collect data on the health and nutritional status of the U.S. population. CDC
reports the NHANES results in the National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals. The Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals was
released in 2003 and presented biomonitoring exposure data for 116 environmental chemicals for
the civilian, non-institutionalized U.S. population over the 2-year period 1999-2000. The Third
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals presents similar exposure data
for the U.S. population for 148 environmental chemicals over the period 2001-2002. The Third
Report also includes the data from the Second Report.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Biomonitoring measurements for the Report were
from samples from participants in NHANES. NHANES collects information about a wide range
of health-related behaviors, performs a physical examination and collects samples for laboratory
tests. Beginning in 1999, NHANES became a continuous survey, sampling the U.S. population
annually and releasing the data in 2-year cycles. The sampling plan follows a complex, stratified,
multistage, probability-cluster design to select a representative sample of the civilian,
noninstitutionalized population in the United States. Additional detailed information on the
design and conduct of the NHANES survey is available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.
The CDC National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) provides guidelines for the analysis of
NHANES data at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_general_guidelinesjune_04.pdf.
Other details about the methodology including statistical methods are reported in the Third
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals.
QA/QC Procedures: The CDC quality assurance and quality control procedures are not
specified in the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals.
However, the Data Sources and Data Analysis chapter in the report does delineate the
assumptions inherent in the analysis.
Data Quality Review: The data comes from the NHANES study, which CDC has designed to
have a high quality.
Data Limitations: NHANES is designed to provide estimates for the civilian, non-
institutionalized U.S. population. The current design does not permit examination of exposure
levels by locality, state, or region; seasons of the year; proximity to sources of exposure; or use
of particular products. For example, it is not possible to extract a subset of the data and examine
levels of blood lead that represent levels in a particular state's population.
Error Estimate: The Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals
40
-------
provides 95% confidence intervals for all statistics. At the point of interest for this measure, the
95% confidence interval is roughly 1.2 ug/1.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Third National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals." NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570. Atlanta, GA. July 2005.
Available at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in or other
recreational contact with, coastal and Great Lakes waters measured as a five-year
average.
Performance Database: Data on waterborne disease outbreaks (WBDOs) are collected by the
states and are submitted to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) under an agreement with the
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the organization that sponsors the collection of
the data. EPA/ORD collaborates with CDC in the analysis of the data. The data are published
every two years for the prior second and third years' occurrence of outbreaks as a Surveillance
Summary in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), e.g. data from 1997-
1998 were published in 2000. Outbreaks of gastroenteritis, dermatitis, and other diseases are
listed according to date of occurrence, state in which the outbreak occurred, etiological agent, the
number of cases that resulted from the outbreak, class of the outbreak data (index of data quality
for the reporting of the outbreak), and the type of source (e.g., lake, river, pool) involved.
Data Source: Since 1971, CDC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have
maintained a collaborative surveillance system for collecting and periodically reporting data that
relate to occurrences and causes of WBDOs. The surveillance system includes data about
outbreaks associated with drinking water and recreational water. State, territorial, and local
public health departments are primarily responsible for detecting and investigating WBDOs and
for voluntarily reporting them to CDC.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: State, territorial, and local public health agencies
report WBDOs to CDC on a standard form (CDC form 52.12). CDC annually requests reports
from state and territorial epidemiologists or from persons designated as WBDO surveillance
coordinators. As indicated above, the data are submitted to CDC by the states under an
agreement with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Original data forms and the
primary database itself are not available for external review because of concerns about the
integrity and confidentiality of the data, which include information such as the names of data
reporters, specific identities of water bodies, and identities of facilities and properties, both
public and private, at which the outbreaks occurred. Many, if not most outbreaks occur in
treated man-made water environments which are not reflective of outcomes of Clean Water Act
41
-------
programs. Others occur in untreated natural waters in smaller waterbodies not impacted by EPA
programs or activities. Accordingly, cooperation of database managers is required to identify
specific outbreaks which should be counted under this measure as occurring in waters of the
United States.
The unit of analysis for the WBDO surveillance system is an outbreak, not an individual case of
a waterborne disease, although this information is reported. Two criteria must be met for an
event to be defined as a water-associated disease outbreak. First, two or more people must have
experienced a similar illness after exposure to water. This criterion is waived for single cases of
laboratory-confirmed primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM). WBDOs associated with
cruise ships are not summarized in the CDC report.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are submitted to CDC on a standard reporting form in hard copy by
mail. Procedures for reporting outbreaks on the Internet for web-entry electronic submission are
currently under development. Upgrades to the reporting system to incorporate electronic data
reporting are anticipated to be implemented within the next three years1. Currently, CDC
annually obtains reports from state or territorial epidemiologists or persons designated as WBDO
surveillance coordinators. Numeric and text data are abstracted from the outbreak form and
supporting documents and entered into a database for analysis. Information on QA/QC
procedures employed by the individual states or other reporting entities is not included in the
CDC reporting.
Data Quality Review: The CDC and EPA/ORD report team review the outbreak reports to
ensure the information is complete, following up with the state or local government to obtain
additional information where needed. There are currently no external party reviews of this
information conducted prior to publication.
WBDOs reported to the surveillance system are classified according to the strength of the
evidence implicating water as the vehicle of transmission. The classification scheme (i.e.,
Classes I—TV) is based on the epidemiologic and water-quality data provided on the outbreak
report form. Epidemiologic data are weighted more than water-quality data. Although outbreaks
without water-quality data might be included in this summary, reports that lack epidemiologic
data were excluded. Single cases of PAM are not classified according to this scheme. Weighting
of epidemiologic data does not preclude the relative importance of both types of data. The
purpose of the outbreak reporting system is not only to implicate water as the vehicle for the
outbreak but also to understand the circumstances that led to the outbreak.
Data Limitations: There are two primary limitations to the CDC WBDO data with respect to
this performance measure. The first limitation relates to original data forms and the primary
database itself not being available for external review. The implication of this limitation is that
database managers or report authors will have to be consulted to identify which of the reported
outbreaks have, in fact, occurred in Waters of the United States. The second limitation is the fact
that very few outbreaks have been reported over the ten years of data that have been reviewed in
consideration of a baseline for this measure.2"6 The implication of this measure is that were a
small number of outbreaks to occur within a given year, it may still be within the range of
normal statistical variability and therefore not an effective performance measure.
42
-------
One key limitation of the data collected as part of the WBDO surveillance system is that the
information pertains only to disease outbreaks rather than endemic illness. The epidemiologic
trends and water-quality concerns observed in outbreaks might not necessarily reflect or
correspond with trends associated with endemic waterborne illness. To address this problem,
EPA and CDC are collaborating on the NEEAR Water Study to assess the magnitude of
waterborne illness associated with routine, non-outbreak-associated exposure to marine and
freshwater recreational areas.
Error Estimate: The relative quality of data and the error estimate associated with data of a
given quality are indicated by the classification of the outbreak report. A classification of I
indicates that adequate epidemiologic and water-quality data were reported. Specifically, a
classification of I indicates that adequate data were provided about exposed and unexposed
persons with a relative risk or odds ratio of =>2 or P value of =<0.05, which indicates statistical
significance. Higher classification numbers (II-IV) indicate relatively higher error estimates
based on factors such as completeness of data and sample size. For instance, outbreaks that
affect fewer persons are more likely to receive a classification of III rather than I because of the
relatively limited sample size available for analysis.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The manual reporting of WBDOs has been
practiced since the collaborative surveillance system for collecting and reporting data began in
1971. Plans are now in place to transform the outbreak reporting system over the next three
years to incorporate electronic data reporting. It is anticipated that the implementation of these
upgrades will increase the number of reported outbreaks substantially. An increased number of
reported WBDOs resulting from electronic reporting would require the baseline for the
performance measure to be reset to a baseline consistent with the new level of reporting in order
to yield meaningful trends in the occurrence of waterborne outbreaks in the future.
References
1. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. Personal Communication w/ Calderon
RL, author. Washington, DC, December 2005.
2. Yoder JS, Blackburn BG, Craun GF, Hill V, Levy DA, Calderon RL, et al. Surveillance
for waterborne-disease outbreaks—United States, 2001—2002. In: CDC Surveillance
Summaries, October 22, 2004. MMWR2004;53(SS-08): 1-22
3. Lee SH, Levy DA, Craun GF, Beach MJ, Calderon RL. Surveillance for waterborne-
disease outbreaks—United States, 1999—2000. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries,
November 22, 2002. MMWR2002;51(SS-8): 1-47.
4. Barwick RS, Levy DA, Craun GF, Beach MJ, Calderon RL. Surveillance for waterborne
disease outbreaks—United States, 1997—1998. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, May
26, 2000. MMWR2000;49 (No. SS-4):l-34.
5. Levy DA, Bens MS, Craun GF, Calderon RL, Herwaldt BL. Surveillance for waterborne-
disease outbreaks—United States, 1995-1996. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries,
December 11, 1998. MMWR 1998;47(No. SS-5):l-34.
6. Kramer MH, Herwaldt BL, Craun GF, Calderon RL, Juranek DD. Surveillance for
waterborne-disease outbreaks—United States, 1993—1994. In: CDC Surveillance
Summaries, April 12, 1996. MMWR 1996;45 (No. SS-l):l-33.
43
-------
FY 2008 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.,
2007 calendar year data are used to report against FY 2008 commitments). As of 2005, States
and Territories monitor for pathogens at 4,025 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
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,
44
-------
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 was voluntary. While the voluntary response rate has been high, it did
not capture 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, with information now
available for 4,025 of 6,099 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. All coastal and Great Lakes states
and territories now apply annually for implementation grants.
Error Estimate: Not all coastal and Great Lakes beaches are monitored. In 2005, States and
Territories report that they monitor at 4,025 of the 6,099 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. This
monitoring varies between States. For example, North Carolina monitors all its 247 beaches
whereas South Carolina monitors 23 of 299 beaches it identified. 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 (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. The amount, quality, and consistency of available data will improve to
the extent that state governments apply for and receive these grants. In FY 2008, EPA expects
all 35 coastal and Great Lakes states to again apply for grants to implement monitoring and
notification programs.
References:
U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's Beach Report: 2005 Swimming Season." EPA-823-F-
06-010. Washington, DC, June 2006. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2005/2005fs.pdf
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
45
-------
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
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
Leecaster. M.K. and S.B. Weisberg, Effect of Sampling Frequency on Shoreline
Microbiology Assessments, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(11), 2001.
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.
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• The Percentage of identified Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells closed or
permitted.
• Class I, II, and III wells that maintain mechanical integrity without a failure that
releases contaminants to underground sources of drinking water.
• Percentage of prohibited Class IV and high-priority, identified, potentially
endangering Class V wells closed or permitted in ground-water based source water
areas.
Performance Database: The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program is authorized
under Part C Sections 1422 -1426 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA). Regulations for the
UIC program are in 40 CFR Parts 144 - 148. Basic program information is collected from states
and EPA's regional offices (regions) with direct implementation (DI) responsibilities through the
7520 Federal Reporting forms 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. In July 2005, EPA issued a measures
reporting assistance memorandum, "Information to Assist Regions and States to Report on
Underground Injection Control Program's National Water Program Guidance Performance
Activity Measures. " Starting in FY 2005, including annual updates thereafter, states report to
EPA on the results of their UIC performance measures. In the initial 2005 reporting, states or the
regions, if they have direct implementation of the program, report the following information: (1)
The number of Class I, II, III, and V violations and significant violations that have been
identified and addressed, (2) the number of Class I, II, III and V inspections, (3) The number of
Class I, II and III salt solution mining wells that maintained mechanical integrity, (4) the number
of Class V wells in Source Water Protection Areas (SWPAs) with surveys completed, and (5) the
number of high priority wells in ground water based SWPAs that are closed or permitted. This
information was reported to help determine the impact that the UIC program is having relative to
public health protection. It also helps assess the progress being made to protect underground
sources of drinking water (USDW).
46
-------
In FY 2003, EPA maintained pilot state-level summary data for each of these reporting elements
in a spreadsheet format. In FY 2005, states and/or regions reported summary measures
information through a spreadsheet. In FY 2006, measures data was entered into a web-based
reporting form which mirrored the spreadsheet from the previous year. The UIC program will
begin collecting program information in a UIC national database in 2007; this system will
electronically transfer information from state databases to EPA's national database using EPA's
Exchange Network. EPA is currently working with the regions and several states to complete
development of the system and to begin populating it.
Data Source: Until the UIC national database is deployed for use, states or DI programs will
report to EPA using the UIC Inventory/Performance Activity Measures System. This is a web-
base data entry system. Starting in 2007, states and DI programs will transition to the UIC
national data system for reporting of UIC data. - See section "New/Improved Data or Systems."
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For these measures, the states' reporting of progress is
based on EPA's 2005 guidance, "Information to Assist Regions and States to Report on
Underground Injection Control Program's National Water Program Guidance Performance
Activity Measures. " States will only report state-level summary information, much of which is
contained in state databases. State reporting will be based on definitions and procedures found in
the guidance. EPA believes that the data will be reliable for use in making management
decisions.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures include validation of information using states' 7520
reporting forms. Additionally, a series of data checks are built into the web entry system. EPA's
regional offices also will work with individual states to verify information. Additional checks are
performed by EPA headquarters on randomly selected states.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's regional offices will conduct data quality reviews of state data
using the QA/QC procedures and work with states to resolve data issues. EPA headquarters will
communicate any additional concerns that may occur. The national data system includes
software to reject erroneous data. 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: Current reporting only provides summary-level information. There is no
standard protocol for EPA to verify and validate this summary data against well-level
information contained in state databases. Some of the information used for calculation of the
measures has not been collected historically reducing the availability of information, which may
cause the data to be incomplete and inconsistent across states.
Error Estimate: There is no basis for making an error estimate for these performance measures
given the data limitations of state-level summary reporting described above.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The UIC national data base is being developed though
consultation with regions and states. It will give EPA the ability to access the data directly from
states through the Exchange Network using the Central Data Exchange (CDX). The data system
47
-------
will not only include the data for the measures but all of the data necessary for EPA to
effectively manage the national program.
References:
Guidance, Regulations and Data Forms
• Information to Assist Regions and States to Report on Underground Injection Control
Program's National Water Program Guidance Performance Activity Measures (Reporting
Assistance Memo)—7/06/06
• Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Parts 144 through 148
• UIC Inventory/Performance Activity Measures System
• 7520 Federal Reporting Forms (OGWDW Homepage-UIC Program)
Form 7520-1 (summary of permit and non permit actions taken by state)
Form 7520-2A (summary of state compliance evaluation actions)
Form 7520- 2B (summary of significant non-compliance)
Form 7520-3(mechanical integrity test/remedial actions)
Form 7520-4 (Quarterly Exceptions List)
Web site addresses
• Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. P.L. 104-182. (Washington: 6 August
1996). Available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/sdwa.html
• For more detailed information on Underground Injection topics, US EPA Officeof
Ground Water and Drinking Water/UIC Program. Available on website:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic.html
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of waters assessed using statistically valid surveys
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. Once the data schema for biological and
habitat data are developed and deployed for the Exchange Network-based water quality
exchange (WQX) warehouse, these data will go directly to the WQX warehouse instead of
STORET.
Data Source: Data are collected, processed and analyzed through EPA-State collaboration to
assess and report on the condition of the nation's waters with documented confidence. Under this
partnership, samples are collected across the country during a specified index period for each
48
-------
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 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. 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.
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
49
-------
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 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:
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
STOJAET database website. http://www.epa.gov/STOJAET/index.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-620/R-
01/005
50
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-
620/R-03/002
FY 2008 Performance Measures;
• Number of water body segments identified by States in 2002 as not attaining
standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained (PART measure
for the surface water protection program and the section 106 grant program)
• Number of waterbodies identified by States (in 2000 or subsequent years) as being
primarily NPS-impaired that are partially or fully restored (Part measure for the
section 319 grant program)
• Cost per water segment restored (section 106 grant program PART efficiency
measure)
• Section 319 funds (Smillion) expended per partially or fully restored waterbody
(section 319 grant program 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 these measures. 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, information stored in the National
Assessment Database (found at http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/index.html) and, for a small
number of waters tracked by these measures, stand-alone databases, yield the baseline data for
these measures. As discussed below under "New and Improved Data Systems," EPA is creating a
single database in 2007 that will track all the impaired waters in the baseline for these measures.
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 2002 impaired totals. Changes will be recorded in reports from States, scheduled every two
years through 2012, as removals of water body impairments and impaired water bodies.
The measure regarding the restoration of primarily NPS-impaired waters is being verified
through a laborious and careful process, in which EPA Headquarters staff review and help
prepare a detailed 2-page Fact Sheet that includes a description of the impairment and the causes
of that impairment; a description of the activities that were undertaken to remove the
impairment; the effect of those activities; and the partners involved in solving the problem. Each
of these stories is uploaded to the public web site ofwww.epa.gov/nps/success, and only after
uploaded is it counted towards the (250 waterbodies) goal.
Data Source: The primary data source for these measures is State 303(d) lists of their impaired
water bodies needing development of TMDLs and State Integrated Reports covering their
51
-------
required submittals of monitoring information pursuant to section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.
These lists/reports are submitted each biennial reporting cycle. The baseline for this measure is
the 2002 list/2002 integrated reports. States prepare lists/reports using actual water quality
monitoring data, probability-based monitoring information, and other existing and readily
available information and knowledge the state has, in order to make comprehensive
determinations addressing the total extent of the state's water body impairments. Once EPA
approves a state's 303(d) list, the information is entered into WATERS, as described above.
Throughout 2006, EPA worked with States that did not submit Integrated Reports in 2002 to
supplement their 2002 303(d) lists of impaired waters needing TMDLs with waters that were
also impaired in 2002 but were not on 303(d) lists because all needed TMDLs were complete.
Thus, EPA now has a more complete list of impaired waters for tracking under these measures.
The efficiency measure for the section 106 grant program is derived by dividing the actual
expenditures or President Budget requests for the section 106 grant program, plus State funding
matches for these grants (as reported to EPA by the States) by the cumulative number of water
body segments restored.
The efficiency measures for the section 319 grant program is based on the assumption that $100
million dollars annually of 319 dollars will be devoted annually, from 2000 through 2007, to
remediate impaired waters. These funds are assumed to be accompanied by a State/Federal
match required by Section 319 of 40% to EPA's 60% (although the match requirements apply to
the entire grant only, not to the remediation component alone). Thus the State match for $700
million dollars is $466 million, bringing the total funds available to a total of $1.166 billion. The
efficiency measure for this measure is that 250 waterbodies would be remediated for $1.166
billion, or an average of or approximately $4.66 million per waterbody.
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 many States in the STOrage
and RETrieval (STORET) database.
States exercise considerable discretion in using monitoring data and other available information
to make decisions about which waters meet their designated uses in accordance with state water
quality standards. EPA then aggregates State data to generate national performance measures.
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. EPA encourages States to effectively assess
their waters and make all necessary efforts to ensure the timely submittal of required § 303(d)
lists of impaired waters. EPA will work with States to facilitate State submission of accurate,
georeferenced, and comprehensive data. Also, EPA is heightening efforts to ensure expeditious
review of the 303(d) list submissions with national consistency.
52
-------
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data provided by States pursuant to individual State 303(d)
lists (under CWA Section 303(d)) and/or Integrated 305(b)/303(d) Reports) is dependent on
individual state procedures. EPA regional staff interact 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, consistent with the Office of Water Quality Management Plan (QMP). EPA requires
that each organization 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).
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) Program5, the March 15, 2000 Government Accounting Office report Water Quality:
Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data6, the 2001 National Academy of
Sciences Report Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management and EPA 's
Draft Report on the Environment8
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.
5 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).
6 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)
7 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
8 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)
53
-------
Third, EPA and states have developed guidance. The 2006 Integrated Report Guidance (released
August 3, 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG)9 provides comprehensive direction
to states on fulfilling reporting requirements of Clean Water Act sections 305 (b) and 303(d).
EPA also issued a 2008 Integrated Report clarification memo (released October 12, 2006;
available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.html )10which includes best
practices for timely development/submission of lists and expresses continued commitment to
support and populate the Assessment Database (ADB) (State-level system which EPA compiles
into the National Assessment Database available via WATERS) and/or compatible data
management systems.
Also, the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - Toward a Compendium of Best
Practices11 (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).12 This guidance describes ten
elements that each state water quality monitoring program should contain and directs states to
develop monitoring strategies that propose time-frames for implementing all ten elements.
In addition, a recent evaluation by the EPA Office of the Inspector General13 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,
Refining the Agency strategic plan to better evaluate key programs and activities, and
Improving the measurement system by which watershed progress is assessed.
Data Limitations: Data may not precisely represent the extent of impaired waters because
states do not employ a monitoring design that monitors all their waters. States, territories and
tribes collect data and information on only a portion of their water bodies. States do not use a
consistent suite of water quality indicators to assess attainment of water quality standards. For
example, indicators of aquatic life use support range from biological community assessments to
levels of dissolved oxygen to concentrations of toxic pollutants. These variations in state
practices limit how the CWA Sections 305(b) reports and the 303(d) lists provided by states can
9 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)
10USEPA, Office ofWaterJnformation Concerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections 303 (d), 305(b), and 314
Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions (2006). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.html (accessed 21 December 2006)
11 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)
12 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)
13 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.
54
-------
be used to describe water quality at the national level. There are also differences among
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.
Also, as noted above under Methods, Assumptions and Suitability, States exercise considerable
discretion in using monitoring data and other available information to make decisions about
which waters meet their designated uses in accordance with state water quality standards. EPA
then aggregates these various State decisions to generate national performance measures.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Water has been working with states to improve
the guidance under which 303(d) lists are prepared. EPA issued new listing guidance 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).
EPA released Information Concerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314
Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions in October 2006 18 months in advance of the April
2008 Integrated Report due date. The primary goal of the 2008 memo is to help achieve 100
percent on-time submittals of the Integrated Reports (all 56 states and territories by April 1,
2008). Timely submittal and EPA review of Integrated Reports is important to demonstrate state
and EPA success in accomplishing Strategic Plan goals for restoring and maintaining water
quality.
EPA is also combining the National TMDL Tracking System and the National Assessment
Database into one integrated system (the Assessment, TMDL Tracking, and ImplementatioN
System) that tracks the status of all assessed waters and waterbody impairments, including
impaired waterbodies. EPA is also in the process of releasing the Water Quality Exchange
(WQX) which provides data warehousing capability to any organization that generates data of
documented quality and would like to contribute that data to the national WQX data warehouse
so that their data may be used in combination with other sources of data to track improvements
in individual watersheds. Currently data providers must transmit data and required
documentation through their own Central Data Exchange (CDX) node. During 2007, EPA will
make a web data entry tool available for users that have not invested in the CDX node.
55
-------
References:
USEPA, Office of Water. 2006. Information Concerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections
303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.html,
USEPA, Office of Water. 2005. Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore
and Protect Our Waters. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/.
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/2006IRXl
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. htnv
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.
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.
56
-------
FY 2008 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://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control)
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,
"Number of water body segments identified by States in 2002 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, consistent with theWater
Quality Management Plan (QMP). 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).
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 and 2006, 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, several training sessions were
scheduled, and a new Assessment, TMDL Tracking, and Implementation System workgroup is
currently strategizing to improve the database (see "Data Limitations," below).
In addition, a recent EPA Office of the Inspector General report included comments on the
TMDL Program (Sustained Commitment Needed to Further Advance the Watershed Approach).
57
-------
The report 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. 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.
To meet the increasing need for readily accessible CWA information, EPA established an
Assessment, TMDL Tracking, and Implementation System workgroup. This workgroup is
fashioning an integrated system capable of documenting and managing the connections between
state assessment and listing decisions reported under sections 305(b) and 303(d) (i.e., integrated
reporting) and completed TMDL information. This system will allow seamless access to all
information about assessment decisions and restoration actions across reporting cycles and over
time until water quality standards are attained. The integrated system will have streamlined data
entry requirements and an understandable interface for both EPA and the public. The system will
also be able to support automated transactions with State assessment tracking systems through
the EPA Central Data Exchange.
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of major NPDES permittees in Significant Noncompliance at any
time during the fiscal year (PART measure)
58
-------
• Percentage of all major publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) that comply
with their permitted wastewater discharge standards (PART measure)
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
resources to help regions and states correct problems. As part of ICIS-NPDES implementation
59
-------
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
replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES (Integrated Compliance Information System - NPDES),
a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data system, began in June 2006 when eleven states
began using the system; seven other states will be migrated to the new system in August. 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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of States and Territories 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)
• Percentage of submissions of new or revised water quality standards from States
and Territories that are approved by EPA (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 provides the baseline and performance data for these
measures.
Data Source: The underlying data sources for this measure are submissions from states and
territories 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 and territories 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 that the standards were duly adopted pursuant to state or territorial 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
Division Director, but no further. Approval decisions are judicially reviewable, and are
accompanied by an appropriate administrative record.
60
-------
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 and Territorial 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 at least five months 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 with weights corresponding to
the number of actual provisions involved. When different decisions are reached on different
parts or provisions 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 provisions
approved, divided by the total number of provisions in the original submission. For example, if
a submission contains 10 provisions and EPA approves 8 and disapproves 2, then the metric
would count this as 0.8 submissions. 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 States and Territories 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 or territory 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
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
61
-------
water quality criteria. The metric searches for one or more qualifying submissions or submission
parts for each jurisdiction during the three-year period ending five months 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 2008 any qualifying submissions from May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2008,
that were approved by September 30, 2008, would enable the jurisdiction to be counted. Note
the overlap from one reporting year to the next: a state that last made such a submittal, in, say,
February 2005, would be counted in FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007 but not in FY 2008.
QA/QC Procedures: States and territories 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/wqslibrary/, or contacting the appropriate Regional
Office or state/territorial 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:
USEPA. September 8, 2005. Water Quality Standards Acting Tracking Application: Users
Manual Available at http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf
62
-------
USEPA. 2000. Water Quality Standards Regulation. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR part
131. Available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/40cfrl3l_05.html.
USEPA. August 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook, 2nd edition.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/.
FY 2008 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 NPS Management
Programs and annual Section 319 funded work programs, which include watershed-based BMP
implementation projects. GRTS includes information about Best Management Practices (BMPs)
implemented under 319-funded watershed projects, and the NPS load reductions achieved as a
result of implementation. EPA uses GRTS to compile and report information about state section
319 program projects, including load reductions for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to
waterbodies.
State reporting via GRTS in part fulfills requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections
319(h)(l 1) and 319(m)(l); however, GRTS also provides EPA and other stakeholders greater
and more efficient access to data, information, and program accomplishments than would
otherwise be available. Besides load reduction information, GRTS, in conjunction with
WATERS (see below) provides detailed georeferencing (i.e., National Hydrography Dataset - or
"NHD"~ reach addresses) for 319-funded projects, project cost information, and a host of other
elements.
GRTS is also part of the Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results System
(WATERS), which is used to provide water program information and display it spatially using a
geographic information system integrated with several existing databases. These databases
include 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: States enter load reduction data for individual 319-funded projects into GRTS.
Various watershed models are used in the States to estimate the load reductions resulting from
implementation of BMPs. Two models used by many 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 staff directly into the appropriate GRTS data fields.
63
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: States employ two main methods to make pollutant
load reduction estimates for the purpose of entering information into GRTS: 1) watershed
models to estimate load reductions after watershed project BMPs are implemented, and 2) direct
sampling over time of pollutants using targeted site selection. Even direct sampling methods,
however, usually involve some type of modeling to separate BMP effects from other variables
when determining load reductions.
EPA aggregates the load reduction data entered into GRTS to generate the national load
reduction number for each pollutant. With each successive time period - each of which includes
load reduction estimates from projects funded under more than one fiscal year grant (since BMPs
are still "working" for some time after initial installation) — the total from the previous period is
subtracted from the total of the current time period to get the incremental total. For example, our
first report on national load reduction numbers in the PART included projects funded from FY
2002 and most of FY 2003 (FY 2002 was the first grant year for which load reduction
information was mandated). For the next report in PART, we totaled load reductions for projects
from FY 2002 through 2004, with a smattering of projects for FY 2005 for which information
was available in GRTS. The total from the first time around was subtracted from this latter total
to give us the increment. This increment is what we reported in OMB's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) in November 2005.
This method of determining the increment has been necessary because of the particular structure
and previous software used for GRTS, which houses projects by grant year. A project funded in
a single grant year is usually implemented over several years. Within a single project form, the
load reduction number (or numbers if more than one watershed is being addressed by the project)
is updated at least annually, but there is no requirement to keep the "original" load reduction
number in the system. Therefore, we did not always have a record of how load reductions have
increased over time for a given project; hence, we use the method described above to estimate
the national load reduction increment from one time period to the next.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of load reduction estimates generated by states is dependent on
individual state procedures, such as state Quality Management Plans (QMPs), which are
periodically reviewed and approved by EPA Regions.
EPA provides user support and training to states in the use of the STEPL and Region 5 models.
EPA emphasizes that Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) should be developed (in
accordance with EPA approved State QMPs) for watershed projects, especially where water
quality models are being used or where monitoring is being conducted. EPA also stresses that
site-specific parameters be used whenever possible for input to water quality models, as opposed
to default input values provided by some modeling tools.
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.
64
-------
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
our use of "ad-hoc" and standard reports available in the GRTS reporting system.
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 identify the activities and results of projects 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. We sponsor 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.
The CWA Sections 319(h)(l 1) and 319(m)(l) require States to report their Nonpoint Source
Management Program (NPSMP) milestones, nonpoint source pollutant load reductions, and
water quality improvements. These sections provide the EPA Office of Water (OW) authority to
require water quality monitoring and/or modeling, and to require reporting by states to
demonstrate their success in reducing nonpoint source pollutant loads and improving water
quality. OW has issued several guidance documents designed to improve state NPSMPs,
watershed-based projects, and consistency in state progress reporting, including their use of
GRTS. In September 2001, EPA issued "Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting
Requirements for Section 319 Grants." This memorandum outlines the process for reporting in
GRTS load reductions for nutrients and sediment (for applicable Section 319(h) funded projects).
Our current "National Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines" (October, 2003)
includes sections on all nonpoint source grant reporting requirements, including GRTS reporting.
Furthermore, EPA, in consultation with the States, has established the nonpoint source program
activity measures (PAMs) - including nonpoint load reductions - which are now part of EPA's
Strategic Plan and the PART. We have 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 our reviews of data input to GRTS by the States.
Data Limitations: State NPSMP work to model (and monitor) watersheds is often not
integrated or coordinated with state water quality monitoring and assessment strategies, and
therefore use of the data may be rather limited. Load reduction data are 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 to decision-making for implementing
and/or revising their NFS Management Programs.
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
65
-------
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 has recently been converted to an Oracle database.
Oracle is the standard database used by Federal agencies. Conversion to Oracle will allow
GRTS to seamlessly connect with WATERS, as well as facilitate potential linkages to a variety
of other databases, models, and watershed planning tools. The Oracle-based GRTS will greatly
improve reporting capabilities for all end users, and make it easier to quickly answer questions
for stakeholders. Questions which will be easier to answer include, "Where are watershed
projects being developed and implemented? Are they concurrent 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. We can customize screens to reflect various
programmatic needs of Regional offices and States, such as to view only the mandated elements,
or a mix of mandated elements and other Regionally-required data fields.
Training on STEPL and the Region 5 model are ongoing in hopes of minimizing operational
mistakes for State staff utilizing one or both of these models to estimate section 319 project load
reductions.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of high priority EPA and State NPDES permits that are reissued as
scheduled (PART Measure)
• Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits reissued as scheduled (PART
Measure)
Performance Database:
U.S. EPA. Permit Compliance System (PCS), [database]. Washington, DC [Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance]
U.S. EPA Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES). [database].
Washington, DC [Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance]
Electronic Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (E-PIFT) [database]. Washington, DC
[Office of Water]
Priority Permits Data Base, [web-based database]. Washington, DC [Office of
Water]
EPA has carried out detailed permit renewal backlog tracking with PCS data since November
1998. The Permit Compliance System (PCS) and the Integrated Compliance Information System
66
-------
(ICIS-NPDES) are used to determine which individual permits are current through date fields for
permit issuance and expiration. To supplement the individual permit data from PCS, EPA uses
the Electronic Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (E-PIFT) to track the current or expired status of
facilities covered under non-storm water general permits. E-PIFT has been used to track non-
storm water general permit facilities since January 2001.
In March 2004 a new priority permit issuance strategy was initiated under the Permitting for
Environmental Results (PER) program. The priority permits issuance strategy focuses
permitting activities on environmentally and administratively 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/ICIS-NPDES to track permit issuance status of these permits.
Data Source: EPA=s Regional offices and NPDES authorized states enter data into PCS and/or
ICIS-NPDES and EPA=s Regional offices are responsible for entering data to the E-PIFT.
EPA's Regional offices and States also enter permit identification information into the Priority
Permits database.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Annually, Office of Wastewater Management
(OWM) provides State and Regional authorities with a list of candidate priority permits, defined
as permits that have been expired for two years or more. States and Regions then use several
programmatic and environmental criteria to select which of those candidate permits should be
prioritized for issuance. They then commit to issue these permits over the next two fiscal years,
with the goal of achieving a 95% issuance rate. Regions enter their commitments into the
Priority Permits Data Base. Results are confirmed using PCS/ICIS-NPDES reports.
QA/QC Procedures: The PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases are managed by the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA); E-PIFT and Priority Permits Database are
web-based systems that 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/ICIS-NPDES 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/ICIS-NPDES data, EPA
and States can make corrections in PCS/ICIS-NPDES. EPA will continue to focus on improving
the lat/long data in PCS/ICIS-NPDES, 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.
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
67
-------
obtain a true picture of the status of the NPDES program. Fortunately, permit event data such as
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.
This has resulted in improved tracking of data, particularly industrial permits.
The replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES, a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data
system, began in June 2006 and nineteen states and several territories have successfully migrated
to the new system. Use of ICIS-NPDES should greatly increase state participation and data
quality. Batch states (those states with their own data systems) will not be migrated to ICIS-
NPDES until appropriate mechanisms are in place to transfer the data.
Data Limitations: Priority Permits data are verified and reliable. We are aware of data gaps in
PCS in general, particularly for minor facilities, and of discrepancies between state databases and
PCS; however, EPA=s data clean-up over the past five years has significantly improved data
quality. E-PIFT has enabled EPA to report on inventories and status of non-storm water
facilities covered by NPDES general permits, but the data are not as comprehensive as those
tracked in PCS. In addition, to date, there has been no national-level data system to track permit
issuance and expiration status of facilities covered by stormwater general permits. In 2007,
OWM is planning to improve E-PIFT to enable tracking of stormwater general permits and
facilities covered under them.
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 has been providing contractor assistance
to improve the data quality in PCS and will continue to do so. The new modernized ICIS-
NPDES was rolled out in June 2006, with nineteen states and several territories now using the
system. ICIS -NPDES will be easier to use and will improve the quality of data needed to
manage the NPDES program.
References:
Information for PCS and ICIS-NPDES is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/modernization/index.html
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Loading (pounds) of pollutants removed per program dollar expended (PART
efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Data for this measure are derived using different methods for
industries subject to effluent guidelines, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), municipal
68
-------
storm water and construction storm water (industrial storm water is not included nor are
reductions from water quality based effluent limits). The values derived from these 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 are 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 industry sectors subject to effluent guidelines, estimated loading reductions
are taken from reductions estimated in the Technical Development Document (TDD) when the
effluent guideline is developed. The common components for such analyses include wastewater
sampling, data collection from the regulated industry, and some amount of estimation or
modeling. 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. States and EPA=s Regional offices enter data into PCS and ICIS.
For Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), trend data is taken from a detailed analysis
for BOD and TSS loadings from POTWs in AProgress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the
National Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment®, USEPA, June 2000, EPA-832-R-00-
008. 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) to provide projections for 2016. EPA has also prepared a
A2004 Update to Progress in Water Quality® that uses data from the 2004 CWNS to provide
flow and loading estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2025. The 2004 CWNS is
currently at OMB for clearance.
For Municipal Stormwater, estimates 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.u
Estimates of the sediment load present in Construction Stormwater is derived 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 erodability 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."
14 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
69
-------
Combined Sewer Overflow (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.
Data for the PART denominator, i.e. the total number of dollars devoted to the EPA Surface
Water Program (SWP), are assembled and updated as new data becomes available. EPA Surface
Water Program funds and CWA Section 106 budget are initially based on the President's Budget
until a final budget is adopted; it is then pulled from EPA's Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS). State 'match' dollars are reported to EPA by States; where updated data is not
available, the last year of confirmed data is carried forward.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: EPA uses the spreadsheet 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.
Data Quality Reviews: The methodology for this measure was submitted to OMB for review
during the PART process.
Data Limitations: Loadings data must be modeled rather than measured as 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 measure actual loadings reductions for all of the approximately 550,000
facilities that fall under the NPDES program. As a result, loadings estimates are based upon
models.
When the ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement is issued, the quality and quantity of Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) data is expected to improve. This will enable development of
improved methods for estimating and validating loading reductions.
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 continues to evaluate and explore improved methods
for calculating loadings reductions nation-wide from all sources.
70
-------
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
SWP PART Efficiency Measure Spreadsheet [Excel Spreadsheet]. Washington, D.C. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management].
Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, EPA 8330R-04-001, August 2004;
available at
http ://cfpub. epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy _reort2004. cfm
Progress in Water Quality: An Evalulation of the National Investment in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment, USEPA, June 2000, EPA-832-R-00-008; available at: http://www.epa.gov/OW-
OWM.html/wquality/benefits.htm
Report to Congress: National Pretreatment Program, EPA 1991; available at:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0244.pdf
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF
• CWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level ($billions/yr)
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."
71
-------
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 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/cwfmance/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.
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/cwfmance/cwsrf
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NIMS is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfmance/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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Number of waterbodies restored or improved per million dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided. (PART measure)
• Number of waterbodies protected per million dollars of CWSRF assistance
provided. (PART measure)
72
-------
Performance Databases: Clean Water State Revolving Fund Benefits Reporting (CBR)
Database
CBR contains state-by-state data on the environmental benefits achieved by each loan made by
the 51 state CWSRFs. CBR is a new database and therefore does not contain data on all CWSRF
loans since the inception of the program. CBR contains complete data on all loans made from
capitalization grants received after January 1, 2005. Some states have chosen to report the
environmental benefits of loans made from earlier capitalization grants. Data is entered into
CBR by states on a rolling basis; however, states must enter all loans for a given fiscal year by
the end of the state fiscal year. As of July 2006, the environmental benefits of $9.5 billion in
CWSRF assistance had been reported in the CBR.
CBR contains general information about each loan, including borrower, loan execution date, loan
amount, repayment period and interest rate. Data on the environmental benefits of each loan
include population served, wastewater volume, needs categories addressed, discharge
information (i.e. ocean, surface water, groundwater, etc), permit type/number (if applicable),
affected waterbody name and ID number, and affected waterbody status (impaired or meeting
standards). CBR also collects information on whether each loan helps a system to achieve or
maintain compliance, and whether it contributes to water quality improvement or maintenance.
The designated uses of the waterbody are identified, as well as whether the loan contributes to
protection or restoration of each designated use.
Data Sources: State regulatory agency personnel report and enter data into the CBR database
on a rolling basis, based on state fiscal year.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into CBR directly represent the units of
performance for the performance measure. Data collected in the CBR database is suitable for
calculating these performance and efficiency measures.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA regional offices are responsible for assuring state personnel enter all
data by the end of the state fiscal year. States receive data entry guidance from EPA
headquarters in the form of data definitions, available online at:
http://12.170.50.10/cwbenefits/login.aspx by clicking on the "help" menu in the top right corner
of the screen.
Data Quality Review: Quarterly checks of the data are performed by EPA's contractor to
ensure that states are entering data in a manner consistent with data definitions. Headquarters
addresses significant data variability issues directly with states.
Data Limitations: Erroneous data can be introduced into the CBR 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 are minimized as a result of EPA headquarters' clarification of
definitions. Data is entered into the system on a rolling basis due to variations in state fiscal
73
-------
years. This new database has been in operation for approximately one year. As a result,
comprehensive data is not available for all states for years prior to 2005.
Error Estimate: As this is a new database, an error estimate is not available at this time.
New & Improved Data or Systems: This system has been operative since 2005. Data fields
are changed or added as needed.
References:
Definitions of data requested for each data field in the CBR database is available at:
http://12.170.50.10/cwbenefits/login.aspx by clicking on the "help" menu in the top right corner
of the screen.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water supply and
wastewater disposal. [PART annual measure]
• Number of homes that received improved service per $1,000,000 of State and
Federal funding. [PART efficiency measure]
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). This database has been modified to
include rural Alaska communities and Alaska Native Villages (ANVs).
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).
Methods, Assumptions and Sustainability: The SDS is an inventory of sanitation deficiencies
for Indian and rural Alaska homes, ANVs and communities. It is updated annually. The
identification of sanitation deficiencies can be made several ways, the most common of which
follow:
• Consultation with Tribal members, community members and other Agencies
• Field visits by engineers, sanitarians, Community Health Representatives (CHRs)
nurses, State of Alaska IHS or tribal heath staff
• PWSS Sanitary Surveys
• 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.
74
-------
The PDS is a listing of funded construction projects and is used as a management and reporting
tool. The PDS supports the annual calculation of the program efficiency measure.
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 undergo a series of
quality control reviews at various levels within the IHS and the State of Alaska.
Data Quality Reviews: The SDS data undergo a series of highly organized reviews by
experienced tribal, IHS field, IHS district, State of Alaska and IHS area personnel. The data
quality review consists of performing a number of established data queries and reports, which
identify errors and/or inconsistencies. In addition, the top SDS projects and corresponding
community deficiency profiles for each area are reviewed against their budgets. Detailed cost
estimates are required for the review.
Data Limitations: The data are limited by the accuracy of reported data in STARS.
Error Estimate: The 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
and 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 2007 the STARS application will be modified so that STARS' administrators
can allow specific users to access their relevant portions of the STARS database.
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic ecosystem
health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale)
Performance Database: EMAP/NCA [Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program/National Coastal Assessment] database (housed EPA/ORD/NHEERL/AED,
75
-------
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. The final data are then migrated to
the STORET data warehouse for integration with other water quality data with metadata
documenting its quality.
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 2000-2002.
These data are collected through a joint EPA-State cooperative agreement and the States follow a
rigid sampling and collection protocol following intensive training by EPA personnel.
Laboratory processing is completed at either a state laboratory or through a national EPA
contract. Data collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (either the National
Coastal QAPP or a variant of it) and QA testing and auditing by EPA.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The surveys are conducted using a probabilistic
survey design which allows extrapolation of results to the target population (in this case - all
estuarine resources of the specific state.) The collection design maximizes the spatial spread
between sites, located by specific latitude-longitude combinations. The survey utilizes an
indexed sampling period (generally late summer) to increase the probability of encountering
water quality, sediment quality and biotic condition problems, if they exist. Based on the QAPP
and field collection manual, a site in a specific state is located by sampling vessel via Global
Positioning System (GPS) and water quality is measured on board at multiple depths. Water
samples are taken for chemistry; sediment samples are taken for chemistry, toxicity testing and
benthic community assessment; and fish trawls are conducted to collect community fish data and
provide selected fish (target species) for analysis of whole body and/or fillet contaminant
concentrations. Samples are stored in accordance with field manual instructions and shipped to
the processing laboratory. Laboratories follow QA plans and complete analyses and provide
electronic information to the state or EPA. EPA and the state exchange data to ensure that each
has a complete set. EPA analyzes the data to assess regional conditions, whereas the states
analyze the data to assess conditions of state-specific waters. Results of analyses on a national
and regional basis are reported as chapters in the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR)
series. The overall regional condition index is the simple mean of the five indicators' scores
76
-------
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
next NCCR (NCCRIII) representing trends between!990-2002.
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
77
-------
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.
Beginning in 2005, ORD began assisting OW, as requested, with expert advice, but discontinued
its financial support of the program.
Error Estimate: The estimate of condition (upon which the performance measure is
determined) has an annual uncertainty rate of about 2-3% for national condition, about 5-7% for
individual regional indicators (composite of all five states data into a regional estimate), and
about 9-10% for individual state indicators. These condition estimates are determined from the
survey data using cumulative distribution functions and the uncertainty estimates are calculated
using the Horvitz-Thompson estimator.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
(1) Changes have occurred in the data underlying the performance measure based on
scientific review and development. A change in some reporting indicators has occurred
in order to more accurately represent the intended ecological process or function. For
example, a new eutrophication index was determined for the 2000 data. In order to
compare this new index to the 1991-1994 data, the earlier data results must be
recomputed using the new technique. This recalculation is possible because the
underlying data collection procedures have not changed.
(2) New national contract laboratories have been added every year based on competition.
QA requirements are met by the new facilities and rigorous testing at these facilities is
78
-------
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.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites achieving environmentally
acceptable conditions (as reflected in each site's Site Management Plan)
Performance Database: Data for this measure are entered into EPA's Annual Commitment
System (ACS) database by those EPA Regional offices (Regions) responsible for the
management and oversight of dredged material ocean dumping sites. This performance measure,
which is a target in the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, will be tracked on an annual basis as a
management tool for the ocean dumping program. The baseline year for the measure is 2005.
Data Source: EPA's Regional offices are responsible for data collection and management.
Under section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), EPA
Regions may designate ocean sites for the disposal of dredged material. The Act requires that
each site have a Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP), which includes, but is not
limited to, a baseline assessment of the conditions at the site, a program for monitoring the site,
79
-------
and management practices at the site to protect the aquatic environment. Each SMMP is unique
to the dump site and is developed in conjunction with all relevant stakeholders. The SMMP
generally defines monitoring requirements, the conditions under which a site is deemed to be
environmentally acceptable, and triggers for corrective action. Based on the requirements of
each SMMP, the responsible Regions may conduct monitoring surveys of the dump sites to
determine benthic impacts, spatial distribution of dredged material, characterize physical changes
to the seafloor resulting from disposal, pH, turbidity, and other water quality indicators.
Utilizing sampling results (as necessary), EPA Regions determine if a site is achieving
environmentally acceptable conditions.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: As each SMMP defines the required monitoring and
environmentally acceptable conditions for an ocean dumping site, any survey/sampling
methodologies and assumptions will be site-specific. However, if a Region utilizes EPA's
Ocean Survey Vessel (OSV) Bold, established procedures for use of the equipment and handling
samples on the OSV Bold must be followed. In addition, for each survey the Region is required
to submit to Headquarters a survey plan that presents types of sampling techniques, including
equipment used, and how data are recorded. These data are highly suitable for tracking the
performance of this measure, as they are collected for the specific purpose of determining the
environmental conditions of the dredged material ocean dump sites. The periodicity of
monitoring is determined by the SMMP, and is suitable for tracking this measure.
QA/QC Procedures: Regions must develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), as
prescribed by their regional quality assurance procedures, when collecting data at an ocean
dumping site. These QAPPs are also submitted to Headquarters when a Region utilizes the OSV
Bold for a sampling survey. The QAPP outlines the procedures for collection methods, use of
analytical equipment, analytical methods, quality control, and documentation and records.
Data Quality Reviews: Regions must conduct data quality reviews as determined by their
quality assurance procedures and included in their QAPPs.
Data Limitations: It is still early to determine the full extent of data limitations.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: This is a new program activity measure for FY 2007;
therefore, any improvements to the collection and/or evaluation of data to support the measure
will be determined following the initial tracking performance.
References: The Annual Commitment System is an internal EPA database that is a component
of the Agency's Budget Automation System (BAS). EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection
Division has prepared a template for the Regions to use when preparing survey plans. QAPPs
for those Regions responsible for ocean dumping sites may be found at the following internet
sites:
EPA Region 1 -http://www.epa.gov/ne/lab/qa/pdfs/QAPPProgram.pdf
80
-------
EPA Region 2 - http://www.epa.gov/region2/qa/documents.htm#qag
EPA Region 3 - http://www.epa.gov/region3/esc/QA/docs_qapp.htm
EPA Region 4 - http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/oqa/r4qmp.html
EPA Region 6 - http://www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6pd/qa/qatools.htm
EPA Region 9 - http://www.epa.gov/region9/qa/pdfs/qaprp_guidance3.pdf
EPA Region 10 - http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5-fmal.pdf
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• 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)
• Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal #1) delivered on
time (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal #2) delivered on
time (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal #3) delivered on
time (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database)
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of a program's long-term goals, each program annually develops a list of key
research outputs scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is finalized by
the start of the fiscal year, and no changes are made after this point. The program then tracks
quarterly the progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-determined schedules
and milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from the original list that are
successfully completed on-time.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual milestones and
outputs be clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year.
Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
81
-------
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research milestones and
outputs being measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program
reviews are used to measure research quality and impact
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Drinking Water Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/dw.pdf (last accessed
January 3, 2007).
Water Quality Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/wq.pdf (last accessed
January 3, 2007).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Peer-reviewed publications over FTE (Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Data are derived from a self-produced list of program publications and financial
records for FTE employees.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The universe of peer-reviewed publications includes 1)
journal articles, 2) books and book chapters, and 3) EPA reports, where at least one EPA author
is listed or where the publication is the result of an EPA grant. If a publication includes more
than one EPA author, that publication is counted only once. Materials submitted for publication
but not yet published are not included. FTE are actual program full time equivalents.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: All publications included in the data are peer reviewed according to
EPA's Peer Review Handbook (3rd Edition).
Data Limitations: FTE data do not include extramurally-funded contributors. Additionally,
data do not capture the quality or impact of the research publications. However, long-term
performance measures and independent program reviews are used to measure research quality
and impact.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
82
-------
References: EPA's Peer Review Handbook, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/Peer%20Review%20HandbookMay06.pdf (last accessed on
January 3, 2007)
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste [PART performance]
• Millions of tons municipal solid waste diverted [PART performance]
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.
83
-------
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: Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2003 Facts and Figures, EPA, April
2005 (EPA530-F-05-003), http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percent of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits or other
approved controls in place [PART performance]
• Update controls for preventing releases at facilities that are due for permit
renewals [PART performance]
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: Data are entered by the states. Supporting documentation and reference materials
are maintained in Regional and state files. EPA's Regional offices and authorized states enter
data on a rolling basis.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Information System (RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
RCRAInfo contains information on entities (generically referred to as "handlers") engaged in
hazardous waste generation and management activities regulated under the portion of RCRA that
provides for regulation of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo has several different modules, including
status of RCRA facilities in the RCRA permitting universe.
QA/QC Procedures: States and EPA's Regional offices generate the data and manage data
quality related to timeliness and accuracy. Within RCRAInfo, the application software contains
structural controls that promote the correct entry of the high-priority national components.
RCRAInfo documentation, which is available to all users on-line at
http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/, provides guidance to facilitate the generation and interpretation of
data. Training on use of RCRAInfo is provided on a regular basis, usually annually, depending
on the nature of system changes and user needs. Even with the increasing 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
84
-------
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. Accomplishment of 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
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
85
-------
history. The system also captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste by large
quantity generators and on waste management practices from treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. RCRAInfo is web accessible, providing a convenient user interface for Federal, state
and local managers, encouraging development of in-house expertise for controlled cost, and
using commercial off-the-shelf software to develop reports from database tables.
References: RCRAInfo documentation and data (http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/). The 1995
GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's Information System Are Limited (AIMD-95-
167, August 22, 1995, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf).
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.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• No more than 10,000 confirmed releases per year
• Increase the rate of significant operational compliance by 1% over the previous year's
rate (target)
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.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's regional offices verify and then forward the data in an Excel
spreadsheet to OUST. OUST staff examine the data and resolve any discrepancies with the
regional offices. The data are displayed in an Excel spreadsheet on a region-by-region basis,
which is a way regional staff can check their data.
Data Quality Review: None
Data Limitations: Percentages reported are sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations
from sample data. Data quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state records.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: FY 2006 Mid-Year Activity Report, June 20, 2006 (updated semiannually);
86
-------
FY 2006 End-of-Year Activity Report, from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground
Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10, dated November 14,
2006, http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca_06_34.pdf
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of Construction and Demolition debris that is reused or recycled
Performance Database: EPA does not maintain a database for this information.
Data Sources: The baseline numbers for construction and demolition (C&D) debris generation
and recycling in the United States rely on data from two recent draft EPA studies characterizing
generation and management of building-related and road-related C&D debris: (1)
"Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States,"
and (2) "Characterization of Road and Bridge-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the
United States." The building-related report is an update of EPA's 1998 report by the same name.
It includes additional sampling data published after 1998 to strengthen the source category
database. The purpose of the reports is to characterize the various components of the C&D
waste stream and estimate the total amount of debris generated and recycled nationally. It is
important to note that the data and information provided in these reports are preliminary and are
currently undergoing review.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Building-Related C&D: The methodology used to
estimate the amount of building-related C&D debris generated nationally combines national
Census Bureau data on construction industry activities (e.g., construction permits and the value
of new private and public residential construction from the Department of Commerce Current
Construction Reports) with point source waste assessment data (i.e., waste sampling and
weighing at a variety of construction and demolition sites). Recycling estimates are based on
data from national industry surveys and local communities.
Road- and Bridge-Related C&D: A model is used to estimate the amount of road-related C&D
generation. The model is a series of steps applied to road statistics published by the Federal
Highway Administration to determine, in 12-foot lane widths, the number of lane-miles in the
U.S. This area measurement is then combined with assumptions on pavement type, maintenance
time frames, reconstruction and resurfacing depths, and weight factors to estimate road C&D
generation on a tons per year basis. Assumptions pertaining to asphalt and cement concrete
debris generation include: "Asphalt roads are reconstructed on the average every 30 years," and
"the cement concrete layer on reconstructed roads averages eight inches." Recycling estimates
are based on limited data obtained from state highway departments as well as industry surveys.
To support attainment of the 65% C&D recycling goal, EPA is currently developing program
objectives and strategic tasks focused on increasing the recycling rate of five materials that
comprise the majority of the C&D waste stream: concrete pavement, asphalt pavement, gypsum
wallboard, wood, and asphalt shingles.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control are provided by internal
procedures and systems of the Department of Commerce and the Federal Highway
Administration, the sources of data on which the EPA reports are based. The reports prepared by
the Agency are reviewed by industry experts for accuracy and soundness.
87
-------
Data Quality Review: The 1998 edition of the building-related report underwent extensive
review. Due to the general acceptance of this methodology and data sources by the reviewers, the
2005 report follows the original study to the extent possible. However, comments received on
the latest revision raised concerns about the validity of the data and repeatability of the
methodology. EPA is interacting with reviewers to address their concerns.
Data Limitations: The limited point source waste assessment data used in the building-related
C&D analysis is a source of uncertainty. Additional limitations stem from the fact that in both
studies, the baseline statistics and annual rates of C&D debris generation and recycling are based
on a series of assumptions and extrapolations and, as such, are not an empirical accounting of
national C&D debris generated or recycled.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste does not collect data on estimated
error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The need for further efforts to improve the data and the
methodology has been expressed by peer reviewers. The agency is undertaking action to secure
additional sources of information to bolster the data and fill identified data gaps, including trade
associations from specific industry sectors and additional governmental entities.
References: Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the
United States, EPA, June 1998 (EPA530-R-98-010),
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/sqg/c&d-rpt.pdf
Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States,
Franklin Associates, draft dated December 2005.
Characterization of Road and Bridge-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United
States, EPA, draft dated December 2005.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of coal combustion product ash that is used rather than disposed
Performance Database: Data to support this measure are provided by the Department of Energy
and American Coal Ash Association (ACAA). EPA collects data on generation of materials
(Toxic Release Inventory), but it does not maintain a database for utilization.
Data Source: The baseline numbers for coal combustion product (CCP) generation are tracked
by the DOE Energy Information Agency. Limited beneficial use numbers are reported on EIA
Form 767 (which is planned to be discontinued in 2007) and through TRI reporting. The ACAA
conducts a voluntary survey on coal ash generation and recycling practices of its membership,
which comprises approximately 35% of the electricity generating capacity of the United States.
The ACAA survey information is compared to the other sources of utilization data, including
data from EIA, the Portland Cement Association and other publicly available trade association
data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The CCP recycling rate is defined as the tonnage of
coal ash recycled divided by the tonnage of coal ash generated nationally by coal-fired electric
88
-------
utilities. Data on domestic production of materials and products are compiled using published
data series. U.S. Department of Energy sources are used, where available; but for specific
utilization data more detailed information on the production of CCPs is available from trade
associations. The goal is to obtain a consistent historical data series for products and materials.
Data on average production as compared to utilization may provide estimates as to the
effectiveness of beneficial use outreach.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control for production numbers reported on
EIA 767 are provided by the Department of Energy's internal procedures and systems. Data on
utilization are reviewed by CCP industry experts for accuracy.
Data Quality Review: The reporting of utilization data is voluntary and requires extrapolation
and integration with several sources of data. TRI data does not track end-use and does not
require reporting of materials by their utilization
Data Limitations: Data limitations stem from the fact that the baseline statistics and annual
rates of utilization are collected from different sources and are not mandated by statute or
regulation. New data sources may be compared to historic data to determine if trends are
reasonable and expected.
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 survey on production data conducted by EIA is
going to be discontinued effective 2007, other measurement techniques will be required to
accurately track production and utilization.
References: The American Coal Ash Annual Survey is located at http://www.acaa-usa.org/.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Tons of MSW recycled over total net costs of recovery [PART efficiency-under
development]
Performance Database: Data are provided by the Department of Commerce and Waste News
Survey. EPA does not maintain a database for this information.
Data Source: The baseline numbers for municipal solid waste (MSW)
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.
In addition, data on the costs of MSW recycling are reported in the Waste News "Municipal
Recycling Survey." The data is based on an annual survey of 30 most populous cities and reports
budgets for MSW recycling and disposal, not actual expenditures. Waste News provides the
89
-------
only study of recycling and disposal costs that is annually updated and includes a range of cities
(based on largest cities by population). The costs also reflect a range of recycling programs (i.e.,
curbside, drop-off, etc.). The cost data will be supplemented by a survey of up to nine cities for
disposal and recycling cost information.
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.
The total net cost of MSW recycling is calculated by multiplying the net cost of recycling per ton
by the total tons of MSW recycled in a given year. The net cost of recycling per ton is estimated
by subtracting the total cost per ton for solid waste disposal from the total cost per ton for
recycling, based on the Waste News survey. Several sources, including Waste News, indicate
that the cost of recycling is less expensive than solid waste disposal. Therefore, net costs reflect
cost savings associated with recycling. Other sources, such as EPA's Cutting the Waste Stream
in Half: Community Record Setter Show How (EPA-530-R-99-013), EPA's Evaluation of
Diversion and Costs for Selected Drop-Off Recycling Programs (EPA-600-R-95-109), and
Carnegie Mellon University's Evaluating the Environmental Effectiveness of Recycling in
Pittsburgh all show similar results.
Recycling costs per ton are based on the median cost per ton reported in the Waste News Survey.
The survey reports the total tonnage recycled and the total recycling budget for each city.
Therefore, to estimate the unit recycling costs, the total recycling budget for each city is divided
by the total tons recycled for each city.
Total disposal costs per ton are based on the median cost per ton as reported in the Waste News
survey. The disposal cost per ton for each city is estimated by dividing the total disposal cost by
the total tonnage of solid waste disposed. The disposal costs are obtained by subtracting the total
MSW budget from the recycling budget. The total tonnage of solid waste disposed by each city
is estimated by subtracting the recycling tonnage from the quotient of recycling tonnage divided
by recycling rate.
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.
In addition, Waste News reports municipal budget data, not realized costs. Ideally, realized costs
would be used for the performance measure. Furthermore, Waste News' method of selecting
cities, based on largest total population, means that the sample changes from year to year in a
90
-------
non-random pattern. For example, growing cities which enter the top 30 will be added to the
survey, while those dropping off the top 30 list will be removed from the survey. The frequency
of these changes depends on how often the U.S. Census updates city population figures and rates
of change in these cities. Accordingly, a survey of up to nine cities for recycling and disposal
cost data will be useful in supplementing the Waste News data.
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. In addition, Waste News is a widely recognized source for
MSW recycling and disposal costs for the 30 most populous cities. The survey of up to nine
additional cities for recycling and disposal cost data will also help to provide support for the
Waste News data or highlight potential limitations.
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. Waste News
is also widely recognized among the MSW industry.
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.
In addition, Waste News reports municipal budget data, not realized costs. Ideally, realized costs
would be used for the performance measure. Furthermore, Waste News' method of selecting
cities, based on largest total population, means that the sample changes from year to year in a
non-random pattern. For example, growing cities which enter the top 30 will be added to the
survey, while those dropping off the top 30 list will be removed from the survey. The frequency
of these changes depends on how often the U.S. Census updates city population figures and rates
of change in these cities. Accordingly, a survey of up to nine cities for recycling and disposal
cost data will be useful in supplementing the Waste News data.
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:
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2003 Facts and Figures, EPA, April
2005 (EPA530-F-05-003), http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm.
Waste News, "Municipal Recycling Survey," (available annually).
Cutting the Waste Stream in Half: Community Record-Setters Show How, EPA-530-R-99-013
91
-------
June 1999.
Evaluation of Diversion and Costs for Select Drop-Off Recycling Programs, EPA-600-R-95-109,
June 1995.
Evaluating the Environmental Effectiveness of Recycling in Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon
University, May 2002.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
* Facilities under control per dollar of program cost (program cost=permit Costs +
base Program Appropriations) [PART efficiency-under development]
Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program and provides
information on facilities under control.
Costs by the permittee are estimated through the annual cost estimates contained in the
Information Collection Requests (ICR) supporting statements relevant to the RCRA Base
Program. ICRs are contained in the Federal Docket Management System. Base program
appropriation information is maintained in the Budget Automation System (BAS).
Data Source: The Office of Solid Waste develops ICRs and ensures they have active ICRs
approved by the OMB for all of their RCRA permitting and base program information collection
activities. The Budget Automation System (BAS) automates EPA's budget processes, including
planning, budgeting, execution, and reporting. Budget data is entered at a general level by offices
and regions or by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:
Numerator - Facilities under control is an outcome based measure as permits or similar
mechanisms are not issued until facilities have met standards or permit conditions that are based
on human health or environmental standards. Under the corresponding performance measure,
95% of facilities are to be under control by 2008.
Denominator - The denominator is the sum of two costs. The first is permitting costs based on
Information Collection Requests for the base RCRA program. The costs will take into account
recent rulemakings, including the Burden Reduction Rulemaking (published April 2006), which
will impact program expenditures. The costs will also take into account one time costs
associated with first year implementation.
The second program cost in the denominator is the input of a three year rolling average
appropriation for Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and State Tribal and Grant
(STAG) program. Corrective action programs costs will not be included but will be addressed in
a separate efficiency measure. A rolling average of appropriations is more appropriate since
92
-------
some of the facility controls depend upon past resources. Issuance time for a permit, for
example, can exceed one year with public hearings and appeals. The cumulative number of
facilities with controls in place is appropriate (rather than a single year's increment) because the
appropriations are used to maintain facilities that already have controls in place (e.g. inspections
and permit renewals) as well as to extend the number of facilities with controls.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of the ICR costs is based on internal and external review of the
data. BAS data undergoes quality assurance and data quality review through the Chief Financial
Officer.
Data Quality Review: None.
Data Limitations: The data sources for the program costs identified in the denominator of the
measure include all of the RCRA base program appropriations (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D program
implementation) and not just costs for permitting. Accordingly, the measure cannot be compared
with other similar government programs. After the 2008 facilities under control goal is attained,
EPA will recalculate the efficiency measure taking into account the new long-term 2011 goal
which includes both new permits and permit renewals.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently OSW does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: As the measure is short term and likely to applied only for
the next two years, no new efforts to improve the data or methodology have been identified
References: Federal Document Management System www.regulations.gov; Budget Automation
Management System
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Number of tribes covered by an adequate and recently-approved integrated solid
waste management plan
• Number of closed, cleaned-up or upgraded open dumps in Indian Country and on
other Tribal lands
Performance Database: The Indian Health Service, in partnership with EPA's regional offices
and the Office of Solid Waste, reports the annual data to support these measures.
Data Source: OSW and the Indian Health Service are co-sponsors of the Tribal Solid Waste
Interagency Workgroup. The formation of this workgroup resulted from the 1998 Report to
Congress on open dumps on Indian Lands. The Indian Health Service was tasked to identify the
high threat sites in need of upgrade or closure, and report the information to the WSTARS
Database. The member tribal data are extrapolated to generate a national statistic.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Tribal Solid Waste Interagency Workgroup's
Tribal Solid Waste Management Assistance Project is a national program that began in 1999 to
93
-------
increase the number of tribes covered by an adequate and recently-approved integrated waste
management plan, and to close, clean -up, or upgrade open dumps in Indian country and on other
tribal lands.
The latest EPA and IHS annual data show that an annual, incremental rate will allow the tribes to
reach the goals established by 2011.
QA/QC Procedures: The IHS WSTARS data are reported voluntarily by federally recognized
tribal members. Quality assurance and quality control are provided by internal procedures of the
IHS WSTARS reporting process.
Data Quality Review: The data are reviewed by the EPA and IHS for data quality. The data are
considered to be accurate on a national scale.
Data Limitations: The WSTARS contains data pertaining to the open dumps and solid waste
management plans of the federal recognized tribal members. The WSTARS membership
comprises all of the 562 federally recognized tribes of the United States. Because the data may
be limited in certain regions of the country, extrapolations to a national statistic may be
inaccurate.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) does not collect data on
estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: No new efforts to gather different or additional data are
contemplated at this time.
References: The IHS, WSTARS data are available from the HIS website at www.ihs.gov.
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Number of inspections and exercises conducted at oil storage facilities required to have
Facility Response Plans
• Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters per million program dollars spent annually on
prevention and preparedness at FRP facilities [PART efficiency]
• Percentage of inspected facilities subject to SPCC regulations found to be in
compliance. [PART performance]
• Percentage of inspected facilities subject to FRP regulations found to be in compliance.
[PART performance]
Performance Database: The EPA Annual Commitment System (ACS) in BAS is the database
for the number of inspections/exercises at SPCC and FRP facilities. Using data submitted
directly by Regional staff as well as data in ACS , Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
tracks in a spreadsheet national information about Regional activities at FRP facilities. Data
94
-------
about gallons of oil spilled are maintained in a National Response Center (NRC) database that
reflects information reported to the NRC by those responsible for individual oil spills.
Data Source: Data concerning inspections/exercises at FRP and SPCC facilities are provided by
Regional staff. Data concerning gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters are gathered from the
publicly available National Response Center database. Data about program expenditures are
provided by EPA HQ and Regional staff.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The spill/exercise data are entered by Regional staff
experienced in data entry. In every case, direct data (rather than surrogates open to
interpretation) are entered.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are regularly compared to similar data from the past to identify
potential errors.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA regularly reviews recent data, comparing them to data gathered in
the past at similar times of year and in the same Regions. Any questionable data are verified by
direct contact with the Regional staff responsible for providing the data.
Data Limitations: The NRC data will reflect the extent to which those responsible for oil spills
accurately report them to the NRC.
Error Estimate: Data reported by the Regions shoulds be relatively free of error. There may be
some error in the NRC data, due to the fact that some spills might not be reported and/or some
spills might be reported by more than one person. NRC and EPA procedures should identify
multiple reports of the same spill, but it is not usually possible to identify an unreported spill.
New/Improved Data or Systems: There are no current plans to develop a dedicated system, to
manage the various data.
References: For additional information on the Oil program, see www.epa.gov/oilspill
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Average state of emergency response readiness as determined by readiness criteria
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
95
-------
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 2008 Core ER target is to improve emergency response and homeland security readiness by
10 points from the FY 2007 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 possibly
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
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 have 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
96
-------
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/appdxb3pl.pdf
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Number of final Superfund site assessment decisions [PART performance]
• Superfund sites with human health protection achieved [PART performance]
• Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater migration under control [PART
performance]
• Annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed [PART
performance]
• Number of Superfund sites that are site wide ready for reuse
• Human exposures under control per million dollars obligated [PART efficiency]
• Superfund Federal Facilities Response dollars obligated annually per operable units
completing construction [PART efficiency]
• Voluntary removal actions overseen by EPA and completed annually [PART
performance]
• Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually [PART performance]
• Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually per million dollars [PART
efficiency]
• Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where all remedies have completed
construction [PART]
• Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where the final remedial decision for
contaminants at the site has been determined [PART]
• Program dollars expended annually per operable unit completing clean-up activities
[PART efficiency]
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. The Integrated Financial Management System
(TFMS) is EPA's financial management system and the official system of record for budget and
financial data.
97
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Each performance measure is a specific variable within
CERCLIS, except for the financial information.
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.
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.
QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls
are in place: 1) Superfund Program 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
(EVICs), program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quick Reference Guides
(QRG), which are available in the CERCLIS Documents Database and provide detailed
instructions on data entry for nearly every module in CERCLIS; 5) Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishment (SCAP) Reports within CERCLIS, which serve as a means to track, budget,
plan, and evaluate progress towards meeting Superfund targets and measures; (6) a historical
lockout feature in 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 is contained in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM) Fiscal
Year 2006/2007 (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim06.htm).
CERCLIS operation and further development is taking place under the following administrative
control quality assurance procedures: 1) Office of Environmental Information Interim Agency
Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.4
(http://cfmtl.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsdweb/otop/policies/infoman.cfm); 2) the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf) 3) Agency platform, software and hardware
standards (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf); 4) Quality Assurance Requirements in
all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being developed and maintained
(http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines); and 5) Agency security procedures
(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView). In addition, specific
controls are in place for system design, data conversion and data capture, and CERCLIS outputs.
98
-------
The financial data are compliant with the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) of
1982 and received FY 2005 FMFIA certification
Data Quality Reviews: Two audits, one by the Office Inspector General (OIG) and the other by
Government Accountability Office (GAO), were conducted to assess the validity of the data in
CERCLIS. The OIG audit report, Superfund Construction Completion Reporting (No.
E1SGF7_05_0102_ 8100030), dated December 30, 1997, was prepared to verify the accuracy of
the information that the Agency was providing to Congress and the public. The OIG report
concluded that the Agency "has good management controls to ensure accuracy of the
information that is reported," and "Congress and the public can rely upon the information EPA
provides regarding construction completions." Further information on this report is available at
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm. The GAO's report, Superfund: Information on the
Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, was prepared to verify the
accuracy of the information in CERCLIS on sites' cleanup progress. The report estimates that
the cleanup status of National Priority List (NPL) sites reported by CERCLIS as of September
30, 1997, is accurate for 95 percent of the sites. Additional information on the Status of Sites
may be obtained at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241.pdf Another OIG audit,
Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30,
2002, evaluated the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and consistency of the data entered into
CERCLIS. The report provided 11 recommendations to improve controls for CERCLIS data
quality. EPA concurred 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. Additional information about this report is available
at http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm.
The IG reviews annually the end-of-year Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) data, in an informal process, to verify the data
supporting the performance measures. Typically, there are no published results.
The Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) was signed in August 2003 (http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf).
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: 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
disagreed with the study design and report conclusions; however, the report provided 11
recommendations with which EPA concurred and either implemented or continues to implement.
These include: 1) FY 02/03 SPIM Chapter 2 update was improved to define the Headquarters'
and Regional roles and responsibilities for maintaining planning and accomplishment data in
ERCLIS; 2) language was added to the FY 04/05 SPIM Appendix A, Section A.A.5 'Site Status
Indicators' to clarify the use of the non-NPL status code of "SX"; 3) a data quality section was
99
-------
added to the FY 04/05 SPIM Appendix A, Section A.A.6 'Data Quality'; 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 implemented due to this OIG audit, see the Change Log for this SPIM at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/pdfs/changelog6.pdf); The development and
implementation of a quality assurance process for CERCLIS data continues. This process
includes delineating data quality objectives for GPRA targets, program measures, and regional
data. The Agency has begun reporting compliance with the current data quality objectives.
Error Estimate: The GAO's report, Superfimd: 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 improved some
controls over CERCLIS data, the Agency disagreed and strongly objected to the study design
and report conclusions.
New/Improved Data or Systems: A CERCLIS modernization effort, initiated in 2002, is
complete. As a result of the modernization effort, CERCLIS has standards for data quality and
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 developed data quality audit reports and provided these reports to the Regions.
These reports document data quality for timeliness, completeness, and accuracy as determined by
the Superfund data sponsors to encourage and ensure high 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 2008, 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 2008, 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
100
-------
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 programmatic
accomplishments reporting and 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.
In an effort to better facilitate and capture important Superfund data, a new Five-Year Review
Module was released in CERCLIS in June 2006. In addition, a new Reuse/Acreage Module is
currently planned on being released in CERCLIS in June of 2007.
EPA plans to replace IFMS with a new system in FY 2008.
References: OIG audit Superfund Construction Completion Reporting, (No. E1SGF7_05_0102_
8100030) and Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality, (No. 2002-P-00016,
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm); and the GAO report, Superfund Information on the
Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241.pdf). The
Superfund Program Implementation Manuals for the fiscal years 1987 to the current manual
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/guidance/index.htm). The Quality Management Plan
(QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (August 2003,
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf). Office of Environmental Information Interim
Agency Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.4
(http://cfmtl.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsdweb/otop/policies/infoman.cfm). The Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf). EPA platform, software and hardware
standards (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf). Quality Assurance Requirements in all
contract vehicles under which CERCLIS are being developed and maintained
(http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines). EPA security procedures
(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView).
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of RCRA CA facilities with current human exposures under control
[PART performance]
• Percentage of RCRA CA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under
control [PART performance]
• Percentage of RCRA construction completions
101
-------
• Percent increase of final remedy components constructed at RCRA CA facilities per
federal, state, and private sector dollars per year [PART efficiency]
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database that supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: The states and Regions enter data. A "High", "Medium", or "Low" entry is made
in the database with respect to final assessment decision. A "yes" or "no" entry is made in the
database with respect to meeting the human exposures to toxins controlled and releases to
groundwater controlled indicators. An entry will be made in the database to indicate 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 state files. EPA's
Regional offices and authorized states enter data on a continual basis. For the efficiency
measure, federal and state cost data are assembled from their respective budgets. Private sector
costs are derived from data published in the Environmental Business Journal.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: 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. Within RCRAInfo, the Corrective Action Module tracks the status of facilities
that require, or may require, corrective actions, including information related to the four
measures outlined above. Performance 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 track the RCRA Corrective Action
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, but facilities or their consultants
may assist EPA in the evaluation by providing information on the current environmental
conditions. The complete constructions of remedies measure is used to track the RCRA
program's progress in getting its highest-priority contaminated facilities moving towards final
cleanup. Like with the environmental indicators determination, the lead regulators for the facility
select the remedy and determine when the facility has completed construction of that remedy.
Construction completions are collected on both an area-wide and site-wide basis for sake of the
efficiency measure.
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.
102
-------
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 EPA's 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 the 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 for the performance measures. 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. For the efficiency
measure, private sector costs are not publicly available. Estimates of these costs are derived
from Environmental Business Journal data.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste does not collect data on estimated
error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has successfully implemented new tools for managing
environmental information to support federal and state programs, replacing the old data systems
(the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System and the Biennial Reporting
System) with RCRAInfo. RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the regulated
universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as facility status, regulated activities, and
compliance history. The system also captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste
from large quantity generators and on the waste management practices of 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: GAO's 1995 Report on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information System reviewed
whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing their
hazardous waste programs. This historical document is available on the Government Printing
Office Website (http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html).
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
103
-------
» Number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration. (Tracked as: Number of leaking underground storage tank
cleanups completed.) [PART performance]
» Number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration in Indian country. (Tracked as: Number of leaking
underground storage tank cleanups completed in Indian Country.) [PART
performance]
* Cleanups complete (3-year rolling average) per total cleanup dollars, (from public and
private sector) [PART efficiency-under development]
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 Agency is working to evaluate and update its current LUST efficiency
measure with its state partners.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The cumulative number of confirmed releases where
cleanup has been initiated and where the state has determined that no further actions are
currently necessary to protect human health and the environment, includes sites where post-
closure monitoring is not necessary as long as site specific (e.g., risk based) cleanup goals have
been met. Site characterization, monitoring plans and site-specific cleanup goals must be
established and cleanup goals must be attained for sites being remediated by natural attenuation
to be counted in this category. (See http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/pm032603.pdf)
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's regional offices verify and then forward the data in an Excel
spreadsheet to OUST. OUST staff examine the data and resolve any discrepancies with the
regional offices. The data are displayed in an Excel spreadsheet on a region-by-region basis,
which is a way regional staff can check their data.
Data Quality Review: None.
Data Limitations: Data quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state records.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: FY 2006 Mid-Year Activity Report, June 20, 2006 (updated semiannually);
FY 2006 End-of-Year Activity Report, from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground
Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10, dated November 14,
2006, http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca_06_34.pdf
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 3
104
-------
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• 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
• Percentage of Superfund sites at which settlement or enforcement action taken
before the startof a remedial action (RA)
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 Program 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
(EVICs), program personnel, report owners, and data input personnel; 4) Quick Reference Guides
(QRG), which are available in the CERCLIS Documents Database and provide detailed
instructions on data entry for nearly every module in CERCLIS; 5) Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishment (SCAP) Reports within CERCLIS, which serve as a means to track, budget,
plan, and evaluate progress towards meeting Superfund targets and measures; (6) a historical
lockout feature in 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 is contained in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM) Fiscal
Year 2006/2007 (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim06.htm).
CERCLIS operation and further development is taking place under the following administrative
control quality assurance procedures: 1) Office of Environmental Information Interim Agency
Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.4
(http://cfmtl.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsdweb/otop/policies/infoman.cfm); 2) the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf) 3) Agency platform, software and hardware
standards (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf); 4) Quality Assurance Requirements in
all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being developed and maintained
(http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines); and 5) Agency security procedures
(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView). In addition, specific
105
-------
controls are in place for system design, data conversion and data capture, and CERCLIS outputs.
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. [Revised QMP submitted in August 2006, but not yet approved.]
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the manage material streams,
conserve resources and appropriately manage waste long-term goal (PART
Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the mitigation, management
and long-term stewardship of contaminated sites long-term goal (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of the Land Preservation and Restoration Research Program's long-term goals, the
Land program annually develops a list of key research outputs scheduled for completion by the
end of each fiscal year. This list is finalized by the start of the fiscal year, and no changes are
made after this point. The program then tracks quarterly the progress towards completion of
these key outputs against pre-determined schedules and milestones. The final score is the percent
of key outputs from the original list that are successfully completed on-time.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual outputs be clearly
defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year. Progress toward
completing these activities is monitored by ORD management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research outputs being
measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program reviews are
used to measure research quality and impact
106
-------
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Contaminated Sites Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/csites.pdf (last
accessed on January 3, 2007)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/rcra.pdf (last accessed on January 3, 2007)
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Average time (in days) for technical support centers to process and respond to
requests for technical document review, statistical analysis and evaluation of
characterization and treatability study plans. (Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress in meeting customer
needs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The dates of requests, due dates, response time, and
customer outcome feedback will be tabulated for the Engineering, Ground Water, and Site
Characterization Technical Support Centers.
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 4 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Cumulative number of assays that have been validated. (PART Measure)
107
-------
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).
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
108
-------
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Million of dollars in termite structural damage avoided annually by ensuring safe
and effective pesticides are registered/reregistered and available for termite
treatment (PART measure)
Performance Database: Baseline data on the number of owner-occupied structures is available
from US Census Housing data. Estimates of the extent of termiticide use and termite-related
damage are available from several industry and academic sources.
Data Source: Baseline data are derived from several sources, including U.S. Census data,
surveys conducted by the pest control industry, and academic publications.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: This measure is representative of the explicit statutory
mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to ensure the
availability of pesticides to permit their societal benefits. An important role of the National
Pesticide Program is to prevent harm and preserve a level of public protection.
Pesticides are the primary means to treat or prevent termite infestation. These pesticides are not
available for use to treat or prevent this problem unless the National Pesticide Program evaluates
their safety and allows them into the marketplace through the Registration or Registration
Review programs. Timely and effective licensing actions are required for homeowners to have
access to the benefits of these pesticides and avoid the significant economic loss from termite
structural damage.
Termites are one of the most economically important insect pests in the United States. More
than 600,000 U.S. homes suffer termite damage every year. Homeowners insurance can help
recover losses from fires, storms, and earthquakes, but it is almost impossible to carry insurance
against termite infestation and damage. This measure will utilize data that estimate the number
of homes that suffer termite-related damage on an annual basis, the value of this damage, the
number and frequency of termiticide treatments, and an estimate of the number of treated homes
that would have received termite damage absent the use of pesticide control measures.
Through this measure, the Agency will evaluate the extent of termiticide use to protect owner-
occupied housing units, average termite damage on a per housing unit basis, and an estimate of
the termite structural damage avoided as a result of having safe and effective termite control
products available for use.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring the
quality of the data used in this measure. Academic research undergoes strict peer-review prior to
109
-------
publication. The Agency will work with non-governmental providers of data to ensure that
quality data are used in developing this measure.
Data Quality Reviews: Staff and management of the Office of Pesticide Programs will perform
the data quality reviews under the leadership of our QA/QC officers.
Data Limitations: This measure continues to be refined. Currently available data were not
collected for performance accountability purposes and may lack precision. Non-pesticide
treatment actions may account for some structural damage avoided.
Error Estimate: Error estimates for established surveys are documented by these organizations
in their survey reports.
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will utilize existing data as well as new data
developed from industry and academic research.
References: U.S. Census Bureau data (www.census.gov/compendia/statab/files/house.html);
Univ. of GA Entomology Dept, (www.ent.uga.edu/IPM/slOO/household.htm); Natl. Pest
Management Association.
(www.pestworld.org/Database/Article.asp? ArticleID=34&UserType=];
"Arizona Termites of Economic Importance", Better Pest Control p. 11, June 2005, University of
Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; "Termites: Are They Chewing Up Your
Home?", National Pest Management Association; Ipsos-Insight 2005 Survey for Dow Agro
(www.dowagro.com/sentricon/termiterisk/facts.htm).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Billions of dollars in crop loss avoided by ensuring that effective pesticides are
available to address pest infestations. (PART measure)
Performance Database: To determine the value of potential crop loss avoided from the use of
pesticides, baseline and future data are collected on crop market prices, crop production, total
acres grown, acres treated with pesticides, and the percentage of crop yield loss avoided as a
result of the use of pesticides.
Data Source: Baseline data on crop market prices, crop production, and total acres grown are
from United States Department of Agriculture (USD A) databases, while the percentage of
potential yield loss without pesticides is estimated by Biological and Economic Analysis
Division (BEAD) scientists based on published and unpublished studies. The number of acres
treated with the pesticides are based on data submitted by State Departments of Agriculture.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Agency will provide an estimate of the value of
the potential crop loss avoided by growers from the use of registered pesticides. The method for
estimating this value involves calculating the potential crop loss avoided based on the acres
treated with the pesticides, per acre crop production and prices received, and potential yield
without the pesticides. In an attempt to measure the magnitude of this potential crop loss
110
-------
avoided, the value is measured as a percent of state production in value and national production
in value.
The pesticides selected for this measure will be the registered Section 3 pesticides which were
previously Section 18 emergency use registrations. The data used in the analysis of the number
of acres treated with the pesticides will be based on USD A databases and data submitted by the
State Agricultural Departments. The percentage of potential yield loss without the pesticides
will be based on the review of published and unpublished efficacy studies by BEAD scientists.
The United States (U.S.) has a large cropland, productive soils, and a variety of favorable
agricultural climates. These factors contribute to and enable the U.S. to be a uniquely large and
productive agricultural producer. The value of agricultural crop production in the U.S. totaled
$200 billion15 in 2003. Major field crops in value are corn ($21 billion), soybeans ($15 billion),
wheat ($6 billion), and cotton ($3.6 billion), while tomatoes ($1.9 billion), apples ($1.6 billion),
and strawberries ($1.2 billion) are major fruit/vegetable crops in value.
American agricultural production far outweighs domestic consumption and the U.S. is one of the
World's largest agricultural exporters, worth approximately $50 billion annually (one quarter of
total U.S. agricultural crop production). In order to be competitive in the world market and to
provide sufficient market supply for American consumers, U.S. farmers need to be able to use
pesticides for pest control as long as they do not present significant risks to human health or the
environment (USDA/ERS, 2004).
The goal for this measure is to develop long-term consistent and comparable information on the
benefits of pesticide usage.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring the
quality of the data derived from States, and USDA. The data used for the outcome measure is
based on well-established QA/QC procedures found in Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer's
Guide -2(QA/G-9R)2 (PDF 61pp, 225K), http://www.epa.gov/quality/dqa.html, which provides
guidance on assessing data quality criteria and performance specifications.
Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize USDA/NASS methods of collecting and
analyzing data.
Data Limitations: This measure is under development. Data limitations will be characterized
during developmental stages of the measure and a complete evaluation will be provided in the
Agency's annual Performance and Accountability Report.
Error Estimate: USDA provides discussion of analytical methods and associated variability
estimates in its chemical use publications. For example, see the Agricultural Chemical
Distribution Tables section, Survey and Estimation Procedure section and Reliability section of
the USDA publication Agricultural Chemical Usage 2005 Field Crops Summary
' The value received by farmers was $200 billion.
Ill
-------
(http://usda.mannlib.Cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsFC//2000s/2006/AgriChemUsFC-05-17-
2006.pdf).
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will utilize existing data and data systems.
References:
USD A data sources include:
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). Agricultural Chemical Usage.
http ://usda. mannlib. Cornell. edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentlnfo. do? documentID=1001
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). Agricultural Statistics, http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agstats.htm
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent of urban watersheds that exceeds the National Pesticide Program aquatic
life benchmarks for 3 pesticides of concern. (PART measure)
Performance Database: Baseline data are obtained from the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program's 2006 report: Pesticides in
the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001 (http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/). Future
data will be compiled from future reports.
Data Source: Baseline data are derived from the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program's 2006 report: Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-
2001. USGS is currently developing sampling plans for 2008 - 2017. Future data will be
available from USGS as it is made available on public websites.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Water quality is a critical endpoint for measuring
exposure and risk to the environment. It is a high-level measure of our ability to reduce exposure
from key pesticides of concern. This measure evaluates the reduction in water concentrations of
pesticides as a means to protect aquatic life. Reduced water column concentration is a major
indicator of the efficacy of risk assessment, risk management, risk mitigation and risk
communication actions. It will illuminate program progress in meeting the Agency's strategic
pesticide and water quality goals.
The goal is to develop long-term consistent and comparable information on the amount of
pesticides in streams, ground water, and aquatic ecosystems to support sound management and
policy decisions. USGS-NAWQA data can help inform EPA of the long-term results of its risk
management decisions based on trends in pesticide concentrations. Recent USGS information
indicates exceedences of aquatic life benchmarks in 18 to 40% of the urban and agricultural
watersheds sampled. USGS is currently developing sampling plans for 2008 - 2017. Draft plans
call for yearly monitoring in 8 agricultural watersheds; bi-yearly sampling in 3 agricultural
dominated watersheds; and sampling every four years in a second set of 25 agricultural
watersheds. The sampling frequency for these 36 agricultural sites will range from
approximately 15 to 35 sites samples per year based on the watershed landuse class. The USGS
112
-------
has no plans in this time period for similar sampling in urban watersheds. Intermediate (2008 -
2010) goals will be refined when the USGS plan is finalized in late FY07.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring the
quality of the data obtained from USGS. The data that will be used for the outcome measure is
based on well-established QA-QC procedures in the USGS-NAWQA program
(http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/rep/qcsummary/ and
http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/index.html).
Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize USGS NAWQA data. USGS is preeminent in
the field of water quality sampling. Since 1991, the USGS NAWQA program has been
collecting and analyzing data and information in major river basins and aquifers across the
Nation. The program has undergone periodic external peer-review
(http://dels.nas.edu/water/monitoring.php).
Data Limitations: This measure is under development. Data limitations will be characterized
during developmental stages of the measure and a complete evaluation will be provided in the
NAWQA 2011 "Cycle II" Study Report. EPA will request that USGS add additional
insecticides to their sampling protocols to establish base line information for newer products that
have been replacing the organophosphates (e.g., the synthetic pyrethroids).
Error Estimate: The USGS database provides estimates of analytical methods and associated
variability estimates (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.qa.html).
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will utilize existing data and data systems.
References: USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program's 2006 report:
Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001.
The NAWQA 2011 "Cycle II" Study Report does not exist at this time - the sampling is in
progress, thus there is no citation at this time. USGS has not published their sampling plan.
There will be a USGS report in the 2011 timeframe.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent reduction in moderate to severe incidents for six acutely toxic agricultural
pesticides with the highest incident rate (PART measure)
Performance Database: Most of the nation's Poison Control Centers (PCCs) participate in a
national data collection system known as the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS).
Among the types of exposures reported are pesticide related exposures. The data collected
include date of call, age, gender, location of exposure, route of exposure, substance exposed to,
route of exposure, initial symptom assessment, treatment received and an evaluation of the
medical outcome. Symptoms are categories as minor, moderate, or major with criteria for each
category.
113
-------
Data Source: PCCs provide telephone consultation to individuals and health care providers.
Most PPCs are operated by a hospital or university and in aggregate serve 70-80% of the U.S.
population. Each case is a separate file that needs to be manually loaded into an EPA database
prior to performing statistical analysis. Trend analysis of the reported incidents could reveal
problem chemicals and the effects of previous actions taken.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: We assume resources will continue to be available for
the Agency to purchase the data and that adequate resources will be available at the local level to
continue to fund the centers. The reduction in poisoning incidents is expected to result from
mitigation measures made during the reregi strati on, from greater availability of lower risk
alternative products resulting from the Agency's reduce risk registration process, from the
continued implemention of worker protection enforcement and training.
QA/QC Procedures: PCCs must be certified by the American Association of Poison Control
Centers (AAPCC). To be certified a PPC must have a board certified physician on call at all
times, have AAPCC certified specialists available to handle all calls, have a comprehensive file
of toxicology information readily available, maintain Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs),
keep records on all cases and have an ongoing quality assurance program. In addition, EPA staff
screen each case before analyzing the data set.
Data Quality Review: EPA conducts regular case reviews and audits to assure quality assurance
of data collected. Also, as mentioned above, EPA staff reviews each case before entering into its
database.
Data Limitations: Because PCC participation is voluntary and the available resources vary from
year to year, the data contains uncertainty.
Error Estimate: Because the incidents are self-reported, there is a potential bias in the data.
However, there is no reason to believe that the bias will change from year to year
New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time.
References: Poison Control Centers TESS (Toxic Exposure Surveillance System)
http://www.aapcc.org/poisonl .htm
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Incidents per 100,000 potential risk events in population occupationally exposed to
pesticides (PART measure)
Performance Database: Most of the nation's Poison Control Centers (PCCs) participate in a
national data collection system known as the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS).
Among the types of exposures reported are pesticide related exposures in both residential and
occupational settings. The data collected include date of call, age, gender, location of exposure,
route of exposure, substance exposed to, initial symptom assessment, treatment received and an
114
-------
evaluation of the medical outcome. Symptoms are categorized as minor, moderate, or major
with standard criteria for each category.
Data Sources:
Health Incident Data:
Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (PCC/TESS)
The Association of American Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) began collecting data for the
purpose of identifying the leading hazards to humans from poisoning and to provide resources
for the management of these exposures. Currently, the PCCs service approximately 98% of the
nation.
Poison Control Centers are usually run by a hospital or university. Approximately 99% of the
nation's Poison Control Centers (PCCs) send incident data to the Toxic Exposure Surveillance
System (TESS). The national data collection system started in 1983. Each PCC receives a
minimum of 10,000 calls annually. About 13% of calls are from health care providers treating
patients and 87% of calls are from individuals who need assistance in managing an exposure to
poison. From 1993-1996, 92% of reported exposures occurred in a residential setting. PCC
collects data on exposures to any substance and pesticide poisonings make up about 3% of all
cases. PCCs submit data to TESS 2 to 4 times per year.
Data from the PCC/TESS database will be used for the numerator.
The denominator number is calculated from several sources: Department of Labor's Bureau of
Labor Statistics, which captures employment characteristics for the national workforce. The
estimate of agricultural field workers is from the Department of Labor's National Agricultural
Workers Survey; The denominator also uses EPA/OPP's annual report of Certified Applicators,
and an estimate for the number of field entries by farmworkers from the 1992 Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Trend analysis of the reported incidents could reveal
problem chemicals and the effects of previous actions taken.
Calculation Description:
For the Numerator :
Universe of Occupationally Exposed Individuals:
1. Certified Applicators = 1,100,000
2. "Under the Supervision" Applicators (Assume 4 X CA) = 4,000,000
3. Other Occupational Pesticide Users = 2,500,000*
* = Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates there are 50,000,000 employees in non-
agricultural fields that we believe utilize pesticides as part of their business (e.g.,
healthcare support; food preparation; building & grounds cleaning &
115
-------
maintenance; production; etc.). We assume that 5% of those employees apply
pesticides.
4. Agricultural Farmworkers = 1,800,000
Potential Pesticide Risk Events:
For occupational users (Groups #1-3 above), we assume every pesticide application has
the potential to create a pesticide incident with adverse health effects. We conservatively
estimate each individual in those groups makes 4 pesticide applications per year.
Therefore,
7,600,000 occupational users X 4 applications/year = 30,400,000 Potential Pesticide
Risk Events/Year
Agricultural Farmworkers spend an average of 105 days/year in the field (1992
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard). We
assume that 5% of field entries present potential risk from pesticide exposure. Therefore,
105 days per/year X 5% = 5.25 Potential Pesticide Risk Events/Year/Farmworker
5.25 X 1,800,000 Ag Farmworkers = 9,450,000 Potential Pesticide Risk Events/Year
30,400,000 + 9,450,000 = 39,850,000 Total Potential Pesticide Risk Events/Year
Occupational Pesticide Incidents:
The Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System recorded there were an
average of 1388 occupational pesticide incidents with adverse health impacts in 2001 -
2003, the most recent data available.
RATE OF INCIDENTS PER POTENTIAL PESTICIDE RISK EVENTS PER YEAR
1388 occupational pesticide incidents per = 3.5 incidents per 100,000
39,850,000 potential pesticide risk events/year potential pesticide risk
events/year
QA/QC Procedures: PCCs must be certified by the American Association of Poison Control
Centers (AAPCC). To be certified a PPC must have a board certified physician on call at all
times, have AAPCC certified specialists available to handle all calls, have a comprehensive file
of toxicology information readily available, maintain SOPs, keep records on all cases and have
an ongoing quality assurance program.
Data Quality Review: For the incident data, regular case reviews and audits are scheduled to
assure quality assurance of data collected by the Poison Centers. All data in the TESS system is
subject to quality assurance requirements, including occupational incidents.
116
-------
Data Limitations: The data in PCC/TESS originates from the public or health-care providers
voluntary communications to the PCCs. Some number of pesticide-induced illnesses go
unreported due to difficulty in diagnosis, symptoms that are non-specific to pesticides, and the
fact that the public may not report. The under-reporting is considered a self-reporting bias.
The denominator data for non-agricultural workers is from 2004; more recent BLS data are not
available.
Error Estimate: The number of potential risk events/year is most likely underestimated,
because we used conservative estimates in estimating the potential number of events. For
example, we estimated only 4 applications per year per individual which is likely to be a very
low estimate.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time.
References:
American Association of Poison Control centers: http://www.aapcc.org/poisonl.htm
Department of Labor's National Agricultural Workers Survey:
http: //www. dol. gov/asp/program s/agworker/naws. htm
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics: Occupational Employment and Wages,
November 2004: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ocwage_l 1092005.pdf
EPA/OPP's annual report of Certified Applicators:
http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/safety/applicators/data.htm
1992 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Reduced cost per pesticide occupational incident avoided (PART efficiency)
Performance Database:
Health Incident Data
Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (PCC/TESS)
The Association of American Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) began collecting data for the
purpose of identifying the leading hazards to humans from poisoning and to provide resources
for the management of these exposures.
Poison Control Centers are usually run by a hospital or university. Approximately 99% of the
nation's Poison Control Centers (PCCs) send incident data to the Toxic Exposure Surveillance
System (TESS), the national data collection system started in 1983. Each PCC receives a
minimum of 10,000 calls annually. About 13% of calls are from health care providers treating
patients and 87% of calls are from individuals who need assistance in managing an exposure to
poison. From 1993-1996, 92% of reported exposures occurred in a residential setting. PCC
117
-------
collects data on exposures to any substance and pesticide poisonings make up about 3% of all
cases. PCCs submit data to TESS 2 to 4 times per year.
Cost Data
Cost estimates are based on the President's budget and State and Regional Assistance Grants
funding documents.
Data Source:
Health Incident Data
Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (PCC/TESS)
Most cases in TESS are submitted by certified PCCs through their staff, and are received from
the public.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: This efficiency measure is based on the annual
number of occupational pesticide incidents. A critical assumption is that EPA's pesticide
program's efforts have a direct impact on the decline of pesticide incidents and that additional
external factors have no effect on the number of pesticide incidents (e.g.,all influences on
occupational incidents arise from the program's efforts). From recent assessments, we do believe
that occupational poisonings are declining and that OPP's action contribute significantly to the
reduction.
Calculation:
Worker Safety Resources ($) = Cost /Pesticide Occupational
Pesticide Occupational Incidents Avoided Incident Avoided
Worker Safety Resources = Value of extramural and Full Time Employee (FTE)
Resources from the President's Budget request identified as supporting EPA
Headquarters worker protection activities; and State and Regional Assistance Grants
(STAG) monies. Does not include headquarters resources for worker protection in the
Regi strati on/Re-Registration/Registration Review programs, because would result in
double-counting. Regional resources for field programs are in the form of FTEs, which
are parsed differently into worker protection, water quality, and strategic agricultural
initiatives by the Regions depending on their priority objectives. These data are not
currently available. An additional complication is the fact that states provide substantial
funding for these programs as well, and their contribution is not included here.
For recent years, annual STAG funds for worker safety (C&T and WP) total $6.6M. The
President's Budget has remained relatively constant at $2.7M for Agricultural Worker
Protection and $2.7M for Pesticide Applicator per year, for an average of $12M as the
numerator in the baseline calculation.
Pesticide Occupational Incidents Avoided = Using pesticide incident data from Poison
Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System, OPP established a baseline for
118
-------
average incidents per year. Use of an average of three years is appropriate to account for
inconsequential fluctuations in the counts.
This measure will be tracked as follows: we will review annual occupational incident data and
compare it with the rolling average for the baseline. If the average number of incidents from the
most recent three years is below the baseline, the difference will be the incidents avoided for use
in the calculation.
QA/QC Procedures: Most cases in TESS are submitted by certified PCC. Certification of the
PCC requires that there be board certified physicians with expertise in toxicology on-call at all
times, poison information specialists available to handle calls, access to a major medical library,
guidelines for follow-up of each case to determine the patient's final disposition or medical
outcome. Taken together these criteria help to assure the quality of the data.
Each Poison Control Center uses standard format for data collection. Standard data elements
include location of victim at the time of exposure, substance exposed to, route of exposure, initial
symptom assessment, and evaluation of medical outcome after case follow up. Cases with
symptoms are categorized by severity as minor, moderate, or major.
Data Quality Review: Trained PCC specialists review the case data and, based on the
information provided and their knowledge of toxicology, doses, and timing of exposure,
ascertain whether the incident was caused by pesticides.
Data Limitations: Experts believe pesticide poisonings are under-reported to surveillance
sources, for reasons, including the symptoms of pesticide poisoning generally are difficult to
identify; there are few biomarkers for pesticides; and because the exposed individual may not
seek medical care or report their illness. Additionally, not all states require mandatory physician
reporting, and those that do may have difficulty enforcing that requirement.
Error Estimate: As mentioned above, under-reporting is believed to be a problem in all
pesticide incident data sets. There are a number of widely-ranging estimates for the amount of
under-reporting, ranging from 25% to as much as a factor of a thousand.
New/Improved Data or Systems: OPP collects pesticide incident data under FIFRA section
6(a)2. FIFRA is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; the statute which
governs the program functions. Section 6(a)2 is mandatory reporting required of the registrants
(registrants are those who have or seek registration of their pesticide products). However, details
important to this measure are not routinely captured in this data set. We hope to improve the
internal data systems that capture incidents reported by the regulated community. Currently,
data are difficult to use and may not have needed detail. If these data were available, they could
potentially be used to complement or replace the PCC/TESS data, depending on their quality.
References: none
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
119
-------
• Percent reduction in concentrations of pesticides detected in general population
(PART measure)
Performance Database: The Agency will use the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC's)
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1999-2002 as the
baseline. For this measure, the Agency intends to report on the changes in levels of
organophosphate pesticides at the 50th percentile (or median.) This group of chemicals was
selected for a number of reasons. A large proportion of data collected from the general
population are detectable residues (or their metabolites) for the organophosphate pesticides. In
addition, the metabolites for which the analyses are performed are derived exclusively from the
OP pesticides. The Agency selected a measure based on central tendency because it provides an
overall picture of trends and is not distorted by anomalies in the data. However, the Agency
intends to follow a range of metrics to more fully understand trends in the data. The annual
targets will change every two years because each survey is performed over a two year period.
Data Sources: NHANES (see above)
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The NHANES data were selected because the surveys
provide a statistically representative data set for the entire U.S. population. It is an ongoing
program, with funding from numerous cooperating Federal agencies. The data are based on
measurement of chemical levels in blood and urine.
QA/QC Procedures: This large scale survey is performed in strict compliance with CDC
QA/QC procedures.
Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize NHANES data. NHANES is a major program
of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). NCHS is part of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Public Health Service, and has the responsibility for
producing vital and health statistics for the Nation. The National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS) is one of the Federal statistical agencies belonging to the Interagency Council on
Statistical Policy (ICSP). The ICSP, which is led by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), is composed of the heads of the Nation's 10 principal statistical agencies plus the heads
of the statistical units of 4 nonstatistical agencies. The ICSP coordinates statistical work across
organizations, enabling the exchange of information about organization programs and activities,
and provides advice and counsel to OMB on statistical activities. The statistical activities of
these agencies are predominantly the collection, compilation, processing or analysis of
information for statistical purposes. Within this framework, NCHS functions as the Federal
agency responsible for the collection and dissemination of the Nation's vital and health statistics.
Its mission is to provide statistical information that will guide actions and policies to improve the
health of the American people.
To carry out its mission, NCHS conducts a wide range of annual, periodic, and longitudinal
sample surveys and administers the national vital statistics systems.
As the Nation's principal health statistics agency, NCHS leads the way with accurate, relevant,
and timely data. To assure the accuracy, relevance, and timeliness of its statistical products,
120
-------
NCHS assumes responsibility for determining sources of data, measurement methods, methods
of data collection and processing while minimizing respondent burden; employing appropriate
methods of analysis, and ensuring the public availability of the data and documentation of the
methods used to obtain the data. Within the constraints of resource availability, NCHS
continually works to improve its data systems to provide information necessary for the
formulation of sound public policy. As appropriate, NCHS seeks advice on its statistical program
as a whole, including the setting of statistical priorities and on the statistical methodologies it
uses. NCHS strives to meet the needs for access to its data while maintaining appropriate
safeguards for the confidentiality of individual responses.
Three web links to background on data quality are below:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/quality.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_01_02/lab_b_generaldoc.pdf#search=%22quality
%20control%20NHANES%22
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_03_04/lab_c_generaldoc.pdf#search=%22quality
%20NHANES%22
Data Limitations: Some limitations include that not all pesticides are included, it is a measure
of exposure instead of risk, and there is a time-lag between EPA actions and the CDC's analysis
of the data.
Error Estimate: There is the potential of identifying metabolites that comes from both a
pesticide and another source.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time.
References: Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals 2005,
CDC/National Center for Environmental Health/Environmental Health Laboratory
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/nhanes
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered Species
Bulletin (PART efficiency)
Performance Database: The Bulletins Live! application is enabled by a multi-user relational
database system that maintains a permanent archive with dates of the draft and final content for
each endangered species protection Bulletin that is created or updated in the system. When the
Bulletins Live! application is made available to the public, EPA will take over the complete
Bulletin production process, which is currently carried out by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) staff through an Interagency Agreement (see below). Additionally, tracking and
summary reporting of all endangered species mitigation actions including the time between
which a decision is made to issue a Bulletin and its availability to the public will be made
available as a part of the OPP "PRISM" information system that is planned for development in
FY 2007. This system will track the staff working on mitigation development and bulletin
121
-------
production, and the time spent on these activities, allowing for a calculation of the cost per
bulletin issued with Bulletins Live!
Data Source: The data necessary to track progress towards the targets for this measure are
currently being collected by EPA. The Bulletins are being developed for EPA by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Cartography and Publishing Program under an Interagency
Agreement (IAG) with OPP. The data will be collected annually through the end-of-year report
under the Interagency Agreement (TAG). The baseline year will be 2004 cost and time averages
($4000.00 and 100 hours per Endangered Species Bulletin production or update).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: These Bulletins are a critical mechanism for ensuring
protection of endangered and threatened species from pesticide applications Bulletins are legally
enforceable extensions to pesticide labels that include geographically specific use limitations for
the protection of endangered species. The faster the Bulletins can be developed, the earlier the
protections are available to endangered and threatened species. Similarly, the less it costs to
produce the Bulletins, the more Bulletins can be produced within available budget and the
greater the impact on saving endangered and threatened species.
This measure is calculated as follows:
100 - [(Sum of the costs to produce or update Endangered Species Bulletins in current 12
month period/number of bulletins produced or updated in the same 12 month
period)/(Sum of the costs to produce or update Endangered Species Bulletins in previous
12 month period) X 100] This is intended to be a measure that captures improvements in
current year cost per bulletin vs. previous year cost per bulletin.
100 - [(Sum of the time in hours to produce or update Endangered Species Bulletins in
current 12 month period/number of bulletins produced or updated in the same 12 month
period)/(Sum of the time in hours to produce or update Endangered Species Bulletins in
previous 12 month period/number of bulletins produced or updated in the previous 12
month period) X 100]
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan to ensure the
overall quality of data in the Bulletins Live! system. Bulletins pass through a multi-level quality
control and review process before being released to the public. After the initial Bulletin is
created by trained staff in the Endangered Species Protection Program, the draft is automatically
routed in the system to a senior staff member who reviews the information in the Bulletin as a
quality control check. After this Agency review, Bulletins are then subject to review and
comment by Regional and State regulatory partners responsible for different aspects of the field
implementation program and Bulletin enforcement.
Data Quality Reviews: Data quality reviews for the Bulletins themselves are ongoing through
the QA/QC methodology described above. Data quality reviews for components of the measure
(time per bulletin and cost per bulletin) will be carried out by the Project Officers who manage
the Bulletins Live! and PRISM systems.
122
-------
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The web-based Bulletins Live! system will facilitate the
expedited production and delivery of endangered species protection Bulletins as compared to the
2004 baseline.
References:
Endangered Species Protection Program website and Bulletins Live!: http://www.epa.gov/espp;
QMP: Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pesticides Program, February 2006;
Endangered Species Act.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Cost per acre using reduced risk pest management practices compared to the grant
and/or contract funds expended on environmental stewardship (PART efficiency)
Performance Database: Strategic Agricultural Initiative (SAI) database contains the SAI grants
funds and acreage data. We are going to track the number of acres, by particular crop, under
reduced risk pest management that were part of a grant and/or contract. This database is currently
on the web site of our cooperator, the American Farmland Trust. We are working to migrate this
database to the EPA web site and then add the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program
(PESP) data. The PESP data are those reported to EPA in grant reports. We look at the adoption
rate of reduced risk pesticides and compare it to the cost of the grant. The data then are the acres
impacted by the grant verses the amount of money spent.
Data Source: Reports from grantees and contractors will be used as well as available databases
to track the adoption of safer pest management practices. Such data sources include the USDA
National Agricultural Statistics Service's surveys, Doane Marketing Research data, and pesticide
usage records provided by user groups. Agricultural pesticide user groups who are members of
PESP frequently report their use of safer pest management practices as part of their annual
reports
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Each grantee or contractor is required to provide
reports on their project including the success of adoption of safer pest management practices.
For SAI grants, the SAI Coordinator in each of the 10 EPA Regional Offices enters the results
from the SAI grants into the SAI database. The SAI Coordinator at EPA Headquarters
encourages the Regional Coordinators to do this in a timely fashion. EPA Headquarters' Project
Officer of the PESP grant serves the same function, making sure interim and final reports are
provided to EPA without delay. EPA will track the adoption of new practices using publicly and
commercially available databases, such as those described above. At times, data also are
available on the adoption of a particular biopesticide or other reduced risk pesticide from the
registrant of that product or from a user group that is adopting the new technology. This data can
be very useful in tracking adoption in the early stages or in cases where little data is available,
such as for minor crops. Data supplied by registrants can be compared to information supplied to
123
-------
EPA under Section 7 of FIFRA to identify major errors, but it would be hard to identify minor
errors or flaws in the data.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA QA/QC procedures are followed for each grant and/or contract
where environmental data is being collected. Part of the Agency's Quality Management Plan
requires that grantees and/or contractors have a QA/QC program in place before the
grant/contract is awarded. A staff member, typically the project officer for the grant or contract,
typically often conducts onsite visits every year to ensure QA/QC procedures is being followed.
Typically, field trials and demonstrations are visited by the Regional SAI Coordinators or the
EPA grantee for PESP work. Data from other internal and external sources, where available,
will be used to determine the validity of the information provided by registrants and grower
groups.
Data Quality Reviews: Staff and management of the Environmental Stewardship Branch and
the Regional SAI Coordinators will perform data quality reviews under the leadership of
program QA/QC officers.
Data Limitations: Major pesticide usage surveys will miss minor usages.Voluntary reporting
by grantees and grower groups on the use of their reduced risk pest management practices
introduces more error/bias than if a statistically valid sample were taken. However, there aren't
funds for this kind of sample survey.
Error Estimate: Error estimates for established databases such as Doane and NASS surveys are
documented by these organizations in their survey reports. Audits of grants is intended to reduce
errors, but best estimates may be relied upon when statistically valid samples are not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA will improve the existing SAI database by including
PESP data or will create a comparable database to track the PESP data.
References: http://www.epa.gov/oppbppdl/PESP/ and
http://www.aftresearch.org/sai/collaborations
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Register reduced risk pesticides including biopesticides (annual measure)
• Number of new (active ingredients) conventional pesticides registered (New
Chemicals)(annual measure)
• Number of conventional new uses registered (New Uses)(annual measure)
• Percent reduction in review time for registration of conventional pesticides (PART
efficiency measure)
• Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions
• Reduce registration decision times for reduced risk chemicals
Performance Database: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network)
consolidates various pesticides program databases. It is maintained by the EPA and tracks
regulatory data submissions and studies, organized by scientific discipline, which are submitted
124
-------
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 were reported on a FY basis for the first time in FY
2005.
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, and as long as
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 standards. 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
125
-------
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Cumulative percent of Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) completed
(PART measure)
• Number of Product Reregistration decisions issued (annual measure)
• Reduction in time required to issue Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (PART
efficiency 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. Reduction in cost per RED
will be reported in FY 2008.
For this measure, the number of FTEs is the surrogate for cost. The baseline is 11.5 FTEs per
reregi strati on decision completed. The measure is derived by taking the total FTE devoted to
reregi strati on activities, as reported in OPP's Time Accounting Information System (TAIS),
divided by the number of reregi strati on decisions completed.
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 standards. 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.
126
-------
Data Quality Review: Management reviews the program counts and signs off on the decision
document.
Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: N/A. There are no errors associated with count data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN, which consolidates various pesticides program
databases, will contribute to reducing the processing time for reregi strati on actions.
References: EPA Website http://www.epa.gov/pesticides EPA Annual Report 2002 EPA
Number 735-R-03-001; 2003 Annual Performance Plan OPP Quality Management Plan, May
2000; Endangered Species Act.
FY 2008 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
127
-------
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
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Cumulative number of chemicals with proposed, interim and/or final values for
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs). (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.
128
-------
Data Source: EPA manages a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that
reviews short term exposure values for extremely hazardous chemicals. The supporting data,
from both published and unpublished sources and from which the AEGL values are derived, are
collected, evaluated, and summarized by FACA Chemical Managers and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory's scientists. Proposed AEGL values are published for public comment in the Federal
Register. After reviewing public comment, interim values are presented to the AEGL
Subcommittee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for review and comment. After
review and comment resolution, the National Research Council under the auspices of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) publishes the values as final.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The work of the National Advisory Committee's
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (NAC/AEGL, formally chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act) adheres to the 1993 U.S. National Research Council/National Academies of
Sciences (NRC/NAS) publication Guidelines for Developing Community Emergency Exposure
Levels for Hazardous Substances. NAC/AEGL, in cooperation with the National Academy of
Sciences' Subcommittee on AEGLs, have developed standard operating procedures (SOPs),
which are followed by the program. These have been published by the National Academy Press
and are referenced below. The cumulative number of AEGL values approved as "proposed" and
"interim" by the NAC/AEGL FACA Committee and "final" by the National Academy of
Sciences represents the measure of performance. The work is assumed to be completed at the
time of final approval of the AEGL values by the NAS. AEGLs represent threshold exposure
limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 min to 8
h. Three levels—AEGL_1, AEGL_2, and AEGL_3—are developed for each of five exposure
periods (10 min, 30 min, 1 h, 4 h, and 8 h) and are distinguished by varying degrees of severity
of toxic effects (detection, disability, and death respectively). They provide a high degree of
flexibility for their use in chemical emergency response, planning, and prevention for accidental
or terrorist releases of chemicals. The AEGL Program pools the resources of US and
international stakeholders with needs for this information in a cost effective program which
develops one set of numbers for use by all stakeholders (DOD, DOT, DOE, States, The
Netherlands and others in the international community).
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.
129
-------
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.
AEGL Program website at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent reduction from prior year in total EPA cost per chemical for which
Proposed AEGL value sets are developed (annual 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.
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.
130
-------
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
used to develop AEGL values. This new database should enhance the efficiency of AEGL
development.
References: Please see www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
» Number of cases of children aged 1-5 years with elevated blood lead levels (> or = 10
ug/dL) (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 2003-2004, released in June 2006. 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
131
-------
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 June 2006, and is available at the web site
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. The next National Exposure report is expected in mid
2007.
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
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/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/analytical_guidelines.htm.
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/nhanes.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 approaches are addressed
132
-------
in the analytical guidelines provided at the NHANES web site
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/analytical_guidelines.htm.
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) NHANES Analytical
Guidelines, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-
2004/analytical_guidelines.htm.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Annual percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that
require less than 40 days of EPA effort to process (PART efficiency 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.
133
-------
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/pubs/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.
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/pubs/traincert.htm.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Reduction in the current year production-adjusted risk-based score of releases and
transfers of toxic chemicals (PART measure)
Performance Database: The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (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.
134
-------
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
regulatory agencies. Over the course of its development, RSEI has been the subject of three
reviews by EPA's Science Advisory Board. 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
135
-------
groundtruthing studies have been used to address model accuracy (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.
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
Model (RSEI) Home Page. Internet: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
Model, Peer Reviews. Internet: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/pubs/faqs.html
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, RSEI Methodology Document. Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/method2004.pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, RSEI User's Manual. Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/users_manual.pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, RSEI Fact Sheet,. Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/factsheet_v2-l.pdf
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent of chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose
unreasonable risks to workers, consumers or environment (annual 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);
136
-------
• 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's current PMN review practices
would have 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's current PMN review practices would have 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, whether
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.
137
-------
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 and whether current PMN Review
practices would have detected and prevented that risk.
The databases used and the information retrieved are directly applicable to this measurement and
therefore suitable for measurement purposes.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003) and will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort.
Data Quality Reviews: This is a new performance measure and, therefore, there is no developed
track record of review and correction. However, appropriate oversight of the measurement
process will be provided. Information developed in the course of measurement will be presented
to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to technical outcomes
and to provide quality oversight. In addition, the National Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Advisory Council (NPPTAC), which consists of external experts providing independent review
and direction to OPPT, has provided comment on this measure.
Data Limitations: There are some limitations of EPA's review which result from differences in
the quality and completeness of 8(e) data provided by industry; for example, OPPT cannot
evaluate submissions that do not contain adequate information on chemical identity. The review
is also affected in some cases by a lack of available electronic information. In particular the pre-
1996 PMN cases are only retrievable in hard copy and may have to be requested from the
Federal Document Storage Center. This may introduce some delays to the review process.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. This measure does not require inferences from statistical
samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error. OPPT will review all 8(e)
submissions received in the year with corresponding previously-submitted new chemical review
data, and not a sample of such submissions.
New/Improved Data or Systems: OPPT is currently developing an integrated, electronic
system that will provide real time access to prospective PMN review.
References: OPPT New Chemicals Program
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/, TSCA Section 8(e) - Substantial Risk
"Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
138
-------
• Percent change from prior year in cost savings due to new chemical pre-screening
(annual 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
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 resulting from prescreening by multiplying the base year cost savings by
139
-------
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-
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 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 resulting from
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.
140
-------
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.
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. Information on the Sustainable
Futures Initiative is available at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/sustainablefutures.htm.
FY 2008 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 (annual measure)
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
141
-------
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
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: N/A
References: None
FY 2008 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, (annual
measure)
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
142
-------
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Number of risk management plan audits completed
Performance Database: There is no database for this measure.
Data Source: OSWER's Office of Emergency Management implements the Risk Management
Program under Clean Air Act section 112(r). Facilities are required to prepare Risk Management
Plans (RMPs) and submit them to EPA. In turn, HQ provides appropriate data to each Region
and delegated State so that they have the RMP data for their geographical area. The Regions and
delegated States conduct audits. About ten States have received delegation to operate the RMP
program. These delegated States report audit numbers to the appropriate EPA Regional office so
it can maintain composite information on RMP audits.
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
143
-------
Reference: N/A
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Number of countries completing phase out of leaded gasoline
• Number of countries introducing low sulfur in fuels
Performance Database: UNEP Partnership Clearinghouse; This performance measure tracks
the number of countries that have phased out lead in gasoline. EPA works with the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and other partners in the global Partnership for Clean
Fuels and Vehicles to document the phase out of leaded gasoline and the reduction of sulfur
levels in fuels worldwide. UNEP manages the Partnership Clearinghouse, which tracks the status
of lead phase-out efforts and the status of sulfur reduction efforts in each country. The
Partnership Clearinghouse also documents and verifies each country's implementation of lead
phase out and sulfur reduction programs. The Partnership's data on lead phase-out can be found
on the Partnership website at: http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htmtfleaded. The
Partnership's data on sulfur levels in fuels, by country, can be found on the Partnership website
at: http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htmtfsulphur
Data Source: The United Nations Environment Programme serves as the Clearinghouse for the
Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles and maintains a database of the status of country lead-
phase out. Information from the database is posted on the Partnership website and updated
periodically by UNEP — at least every 6 months. UNEP collects the data from public and
private sector partners and contacts government and industry experts in each country for
verification before the data are posted. This data collection and cross-checking provide the best
currently available information on country lead phase-out status and levels of sulfur.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There is currently no available database on
international leaded gasoline sales data or market penetration of alternative fuels, nor is there any
international database on sulfur levels in fuels. Because of this gap, the Partnership made the
decision to track the number of countries that have phased out lead and reduced sulfur because
the data are more easily verifiable.
QA/QC Procedures: Experts at the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles verify the
information in the Partnership Clearinghouse by contacting key people from industry and
government within each country.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: There currently is no available database on leaded gasoline sales data or
market penetration of alternative fuels. The Partnership made the decision to track the number of
countries that have phased out lead and reduced sulfur in fuels, because the data are more easily
verifiable. Fuel changes and lead phase- out are implemented in different ways in different
countries, mostly by legislation. But having the legislation in place does not mean that lead has
been eliminated from gasoline. Many countries have set dates for lead phase-out and sulfur
144
-------
reduction; however the Partnership tracks actual progress toward implementation.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: For additional information on the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles, see the
Partnership website at http://www.unep.org/PCFV
For more information concerning the database for phase-out of leaded gasoline, see
http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htm#leaded
For additional information on sulfur levels, see
http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htm#sulphur
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Number of Brownfields properties assessed [PART performance]
• Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities
• Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields properties.
[PART performance]
• Acres of Brownfields properties made ready for reuse [PART performance]
Performance Database: The Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System
(ACRES) tracks the performance information for the above measures.
Key fields related to performance measures include, but are not limited to:
Property Acreage
Assessment Completion Date
Cleanup Required
Cleanup Completion Date
Funding Leveraged
Jobs Leveraged
Number of Participants Completing Training
Number of Participants Obtaining Employment
Performance measure data is tracked by fiscal year and will not be available for the FY 08 PAR;
data will be available for the FY 09 PAR.
Data Source: Data are extracted from quarterly reports and property profile forms
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/rptforms.htm) prepared by assessment, cleanup, revolving
loan fund (RLF), job training, and State and Tribal 128 Voluntary Response Program
145
-------
cooperative agreement award recipients. Information on Targeted Brownfields Assessments is
collected from EPA Regions.
Methods, Assumptions and Sustainability: Cooperative agreement recipients report
performance data in quarterly reports and property profile forms. Data are reviewed by Regional
EPA grant managers to verify activities and accomplishments. Given the reporting cycle and the
data entry/QA period, there is typically a six month data lag for ACRES 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 grant managers for accuracy and to ensure appropriate interpretation of
performance measure definitions. Reports are produced monthly with detailed data trends
analysis.
Data Quality Reviews: No external reviews
Data Limitations: All data provided voluntarily by grantees.
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Brownfields Program updated the Property Profile Form
in FY 2006 to improve data collection and to expand the community of grantees completing the
form. The Program anticipates launching an online reporting form in FY 2007; this system will
be phased in over the next several years.
References: For more information on the Brownfields program, see Reusing Land and
Restoring Hope: A Report to Stakeholders from the US EPA Brownfields Program
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/news/stake_report.htm); assessment demonstration pilots and
146
-------
grants (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/assessment_grants.htm); cleanup and revolving loan
fund pilots and grants (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/rlflst.htm); job training pilots and grants
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/job.htm); and cleanup grants
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/cleanup_grants.htm).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Cumulative number of communities with potential environmental justice concerns
that achieve significant measurable environmental and/or public health
improvement through collaborative problem-solving strategies.
Performance Database: The Office of Environmental Justice is developing a database to
collect the data for this measure.
Data Source: Semi-annual reports provided by recipients of EPA cooperative agreements in
the amount of $100,000 over a three year project period. These reports are collected and
analyzed by the individual technical advisors of each of the projects. The data reported will be
analyzed by EPA to determine measurable improvements which result from the projects. These
projects vary from reductions in solid waste to reductions in exposure to lead paint. In addition
to the semi-annual reporting requirements for the individual projects, the office will also conduct
annual evaluations of each of the projects to validate results in the semi-annual reports.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The method to be used to analyze and review the
information will depend on the type of project but usually the baseline measures available at the
time the project begins will be the starting point; changes to the baseline will be the measures of
improvement in environmental and/or public health. The communities with environmental
justice issues are defined as those impacted disproportionately by high and adverse exposure to
environmental hazards.
QA/QC Procedures: Office of Environmental Justice Quality Management Plan, approved
August 5, 2002. To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls are
in place: (1) Report specifications for each project detailing how reported data are collected and
calculated, and (2) Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) for projects involving the collection
of primary or secondary environmental data. Not all projects involve the collection of primary or
secondary environmental data, however, and do not require a QAPP. In those cases, EPA relies
fully on the project's reporting requirements and evaluation studies to construct the baselines and
trends.
Data Quality Review: The Office of Environmental Justice performs an annual review of each
project to verify the data supporting the performance measure. Typically, there are no published
results.
Data Limitations: None
147
-------
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: Office of Environmental Justice Quality Management Plan, approved August 5,
2002.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Additional people served per million dollars (US and Mexico federal expenditures)
• Number of additional homes provided adequate safe drinking water in the Mexican
border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003
• Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater sanitation in the
Mexican border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003
Performance Database: No formal EPA database. Performance is tracked and reported
quarterly by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American
Development Bank (NADBank). Data fields are population served by and homes connected to
potable water and wastewater collection and treatment systems.
Data Source: Data sources include U.S. population figures from the 2000 U.S. Census, data on
U.S. and Mexican populations served and homes connected by "certified" water/wastewater
treatment improvements from the BECC and data on projects funded from the NADBank.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Summation of population from BECC and NADBank.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA Headquarters is responsible for evaluation of reports from BECC and
NADBank on drinking water and wastewater sanitation projects. Regional representatives attend
meetings of the certifying and financing entities for border projects (BECC and NADBank) and
conduct site visits of projects underway to ensure the accuracy of information reported.
Data Quality Reviews: Regional representatives attend meetings of the certifying and financing
entities for border projects (BECC and NADBank) and conduct site visits of projects underway
to ensure the accuracy of information reported.
Data Limitations: None.
Error Estimate: The error estimate is the same rate accepted by the U.S. Census.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
References:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1990). Institute National de Estadistica, Geografia y Informatica, Aguascalientes,
Total Population by State (1990).
148
-------
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), Cd Juarez, Chih, and North American
Development Bank (NADBank), (San Antonio, TX, 2002).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Clean-up five waste sites (two abandoned scrap tire sites and three abandoned
hazardous waste sites) in the United-States-Mexico border region.
Performance Database: The measure tracks the number of scrap tire piles and hazardous waste
sites cleaned up in the U.S.-Mexico border region. To accomplish this, the EPA works in
collaboration with the Mexican federal and state governments, border States, border tribes, local
communities, NGOs, the private sector and others.
In the U.S., the EPA Office of International Affairs (OIA) coordinates the Border 2012 program
and manages the Border 2012 Project Database, which contains information/data related to
project implementation and progress made as submitted by project officers. Data include the
name and location of hazardous waste sites, tire piles, plans and timelines for clean up, number
of waste tires in the piles, number of tires removed/cleaned up, and dates for project start and
end.
Indicator: Estimated Abandoned Waste Tire Piles in the Border Region
Outcome*: Site Percent Removed Original Number of Tires
El Centinella 77% 1,200,000
Ciudad Juarez 20% 1,000,000
*As of December 2005
Data Source: The data on hazardous sites and scrap tire clean up comes from local government
and contractors hired to conduct the clean up as submitted to SEMARNAT (Mexico), and EPA
and as reported on the Indicators Report 2005.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: In cooperation with the various entities operating
under the Border 2012 program, the Border Indicators Task Force (BITF) selects and develops
environmental and performance indicators to communicate important information about the
border region and to evaluate progress towards meeting Program goals and objectives. Each of
the indicators presented in the 2005 report is classified according to the Driving Forces-
Pressures-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) Framework. DPSIR is based on the idea that Driving
Forces such as socio-economic factors lead to natural or human-induced Pressures, which lead to
a State, which generates Impacts (sub-divided into Exposure and Effect) that evoke Reponses.
The Response compartment feeds back into every other compartment, showing that interventions
can occur at each point along the causal spectrum. For more information see the Strategy for
Indicator Development (EPA 600/R-06/015 April 2006).
QA/QC Procedures:
Once the EPA receives information on the status of projects in a border community, EPA's
subject and program experts contact key sources in the border area to verify data.
149
-------
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations are: ^Inconsistencies in methods of data
collection, processing, etc., arising form work being done in a foreign location; 2) inaccuracies
due to imprecise measurement and recording stemming from tire size and state (whole or in
crumbs); and, 3) lags between data collection, reporting, and updating.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Border 2012 Project Database: EPA-OIA-U.S.-Mexico Team
Program Framework: Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program - EPA-160-R-03-001
State of the Border Region. Indicators Report 2005 - EPA-160-R-06-001
Border 2012 Program Website: http://www.epa.gov/border 20127
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Reduce the mean maternal blood levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
chlordane in indigenous populations in the Arctic.
Performance Database: Two databases provide the baseline data in support of this performance
measure, which tracks the response of human Arctic populations to programmatic efforts to
reduce their exposure to priority Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) contamination in their
environment. Between 1998 and 2002 the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP)
of the Arctic Council, with the participation of all eight Arctic nations, collected data on
persistent organic pollutants and human health impacts in the Arctic Rim Region, including
spatial and temporal trends of maternal blood concentrations of PCBs and chlordane in
indigenous peoples.
Also between 1998 and 2002, an additional study was carried out on "Persistent Toxic
Substances, Food Security and Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North", which assisted AMAP
to eliminate data gaps with respect to geographical scope. This study, issued in 2004, was a
combined effort of the Global Environment Facility, UNEP, AMAP, and the Russian
Association of the Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East.
Both studies documented the fact that Persistent Toxic Substances (PTS) such as PCBs and
chlordane are transported to, and accumulate in, the Arctic Region. Data continue to be collected
under the AMAP Program and evaluated for health impacts by the AMAP Human Health
Experts Group consisting of representatives from all eight Arctic countries.
Both databases are maintained by the AMAP Secretariat in Oslo, Norway.
AMAP Assessment Reports are available at: www.amap.no
Persistent Toxic Substances, Food Security and Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North Report
150
-------
is available at: www.amap.no/Resources/PTS_project.htm
Data Source: The Arctic Council, consisting of eight Arctic nations and Permanent Participants
of Indigenous Peoples, participate in the collection, analysis, evaluation and reporting of results
on priority pollutants such as PCBs and chlordane. The data reports are posted on the Artie
Council website and shared with the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, the Nordic Council of
Ministers, the United Nations Environment Program and others. EPA and other U.S. Federal
Agencies such as NOAA and NIH participate in the collection and interpretation of the data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Analytical and statistical methods applied to the
analysis and interpretation of data, were those methods approved by the European Union and the
methods developed by the NIH, CDC and EPA. A standard analytical method used in these
studies is high pressure liquid chromatography with electron capture. Statistical methods include
regression analysis to look for association of health outcomes between the baby and the mothers
and individual contaminants and mixtures of contaminants.
Maternal blood serum concentrations of PCBs and chlordane in indigenous peoples of the Arctic
were chosen because, in general, the most devastating impacts of exposure to these POPs are
seen in infants exposed to them in utero or via their mother's milk. Additionally, there are no
local manufacturing facilities or large point sources of these toxics; indigenous peoples have a
limited subsistence diet of fish and mammals that bioaccumulate PCBs and chlordane through
transboundary transfer; and human health impacts can be directly correlated to the presence of
these toxic compounds. Maternal blood serum was selected as the reference material since it is
sensitive to changes in environmental concentrations, has a residence time of many years, and is
transported through the umbilical cord blood from mother to fetus, providing clear relationship
between contaminant levels and their impact on human health.
QA/QC Procedures: In the PTS study, a Regional Monitoring Center was selected by the
project Steering Committee to perform analyses using international methodologies and strict
QA/QC procedures. The AMAP study used recognized Data Centers such as the University of
Alaska- Fairbanks, and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. These Data
Centers were already operating using internationally-accepted QA/QC practices.
Data Quality Reviews: In the Arctic Environmental Assessment Reports of AMAP and PTS,
over 140 contributing experts and 14 international organizations participated in a series of expert
groups to review analytical data, data collection techniques, interpretation of results and health
impacts. These expert groups were instrumental in identifying data gaps and weaknesses in the
original AMAP assessments that were concurrently addressed by the PTS study. Such gaps
included indigenous populations in remote regions of Russia, high Arctic Russian cities which
originally did not participated in the AMAP studies, and military populations.
Data Limitations: The remote locations and limited populations of women of child-bearing age
are a primary challenge. This is being addressed by a new Arctic Council Arctic Contaminants
Action Program called the "Indigenous Peoples Community Action Initiative". Under this
initiative, local sources of contamination, such as small amounts of improperly stored obsolete
pesticides and PCBs, are identified and removed from the community. Environmental
151
-------
educational programs are also implemented, particularly for women of child-bearing age and
children, on how to identify and avoid these toxic contaminants. The time interval between data
collection (blood serum) and posting on the AMAP database is approximately five months.
There is very little variability in the sample collection techniques because the same doctors from
the Northwest Public Health Research Center and Alaska Human Health Consortium are
performing the data collection.
Error Estimate: Analytical procedures allow measurements in fractions of ug/1. The error
bound for the performance estimate is +/- 5%.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Expanded database development is being performed under
the new "Indigenous Peoples Community Action Initiative" (see "Data Limitations" above)
References:
AMAP, 2003. AMAP Assessment 2002: Human Health in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and
Assesment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway.
(http://www.amap.no/Assessment/ScientificBackground.htm)
Persistent Toxics Substances, Food Security and Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North: Final
Report, Oslo 2004. (http://www.amap.no/Resources/PTS_project.htm)
Contaminants in Alaska - - Is America's Arctic at Risk? Alaska Native Science Commission,
Interagency Collaborative Paper, September 2000
Northern Contaminants Program-Canada (http://www.inac.gc.ca/ncp/abt/bro_e.html
Bertazzi, P.A., Industrial Disease Standards Panel Report, Ontario Canada, 1987
Dallaire et. Al., 2002. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 110, Number 8, August 2002.
Stewart P, Darvill T, Lonky E, Reihman J, Pagano J, and Bush B. 1999. Assessment of prenatal
exposure of PCBs from maternal consumption of Great Lakes fish: an analysis of PCB pattern
and concentration. Environ Res 80(Suppl 2):87-96.
Yakushiji, T., Watanabe, I, Kuwabara, K., Tanaka, R., Kashimoto, T., Kunita, N., Kara, I. Rate
of decrease and half-life of poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the blood of mothers and their
children occcupationally exposed to PCBs. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology (1984). vol.13, p.341-345.
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Acres of habitat protected or restored in National Estuary Program (NEP) study areas
[Ocean and Coastal PART measure]
152
-------
• Acres of coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands, dunes, riparian buffers, and
freshwater wetlands restore or protected [Long Island Sound]
• 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 2000 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.
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.
153
-------
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.
EPA actions are consistent with data quality and management policies.
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews conducted yet.
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: NEPs provide 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—
NEPORT— has been developed for the NEPs= use that will assist in tracking habitat projects.
EPA has taken steps to align NEPORT data fields with those of the National Estuarine
Restoration Inventory (NERI) and with the President's Wetlands Initiative, developed for
interagency use.
References: Aggregate national and regional data for this measurement, as well as data
submitted by the individual National Estuary Programs, is displayed numerically, graphically,
and by habitat type in the Performance Indicators Visualization and Outreach Tool (PIVOT).
PIVOT data are publicly available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/
intro.htm. The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (July 2001) is available on the Intranet
at http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/infopolicy.html.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• By 2008, working with partners, achieve a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands per
year with additional focus on biological and functional measures and assessment of
wetland condition.
Performance Database: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produces information on the type
and extent of the Nation's wetlands and deepwater habitats. The Emergency Wetland Resources
Act of 1986 requires the Service to conduct status and trend studies of the Nation's wetlands, and
154
-------
report the results to Congress each decade.. To date the Fish and Wildlife Service has produced
four such documents. On Earth Day 2004, President Bush announced a wetlands initiative that
established a federal policy beyond "no net loss" of wetlands. As part of that same Earth Day
message, the President directed the Service to accelerate the completion of the status and trends
and to undertake this study at more frequent intervals. This information is used by Federal,
State, and local agencies, academic institutions, U.S. Congress, and the private sector.
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 report16 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 1998 to 2004. In calendar year 1997, there were an estimated 105.5
million acres of wetlands in the conterminous United States. In calendar year 2004 107.7 million
acres of wetlands were estimated. Of this total, approximately 102.4 million acres (95 percent)
are freshwater wetlands and 5.3 million acres (5 percent) are saltwater wetlands. Although the
report shows that overall gains in wetland acres exceeded overall losses from 1998 through 2004
(approximately 32,000 acres/yr), this gain is primarily attributable to an increase in unvegetated
freshwater ponds, some of which (such as aquaculture ponds) may not function as wetlands and
others of which may have varying functional value. The Report also notes the following trends
in other wetland categories: freshwater vegetated wetlands declined by 0.5%, a smaller rate of
loss than in preceding years; and estuarine vegetated wetlands declined by 0.7%, an increased
rate of loss from the preceding years. The Status and Trends Report does not assess the quality
or condition of wetlands. EPA will continue working with FWS and other federal agencies to
refine the methodology used in preparing future reports, to subdivide current wetland categories,
to provide further clarity and information on the types of wetlands that are found on the
landscape and to describe the functions and values they provide. In addition EPA is preparing to
undertake a National wetland condition study that is scheduled for completion in 2013.
Data Source: The National Status and Trends Report is developed and published by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This is the only Federal study that provides statistically valid
estimates with a published standard error for all wetlands in the conterminous United States.
Aerial imagery is the primary data source, and it is used with reliable collateral data such as
topographic maps, coastal navigation charts, published soil surveys, published wetland maps,
and State, local or regional studies. A random number of sites are also field verified. All
photography is cataloged, numbered, tagged, and traced in a database management system.
For each plot, aerial imagery is interpreted and annotated in accordance with procedures
published by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The results are compared with previous era imagery,
16 Dahl, I.E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, B.C. 112pp.
155
-------
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 4,682 random sample plots. The plots were examined with the use of
remote sensed data in combination with field work. Estimates of change in wetlands were made
over a specific time period.
QA/QC Procedures: The Service has developed and implemented quality assurance measures
that provide appropriate methods to take field measurements, ensure sample integrity and
provide oversight of analyses, which includes reporting of procedural and statistical confidence
levels. The objective was to produce comprehensive, statistically valid acreage estimate of the
Nation's wetlands. Because of the sample-based approach, various quality control and quality
assurance measures were built into the data collection, review, analysis, and reporting stages.
This includes field verification of the plots. Six Federal agencies assist with field verification
work.
Data Quality Reviews: Not Applicable
Data Limitations: Certain habitats were excluded because of the limitations of aerial imagery
as the primary data source to detect wetlands. This was consistent with previous wetland status
and trends studies conducted by FWS.
Error Estimate: Estimated procedural error ranged from 4 to 6 percent of the true values when
all quality assurance measures have been completed. Procedural error was related to the ability
to accurately recognize and classify wetlands both from multiple sources of imagery and on the
ground evaluations. Types of procedural errors were missed wetlands, inclusion of upland as
wetland, misclassification of wetlands, or misinterpretation of data collection protocols. The
amount of procedural error is usually a function of the quality of the data collection conventions;
the number, variability, training and experience of data collection personnel; and the rigor of any
quality control or quality assurance measures.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Advances in computerized cartography were used to improve
data quality and geospatial integrity. Newer technology allowed the generation of existing
digital plot files at any scale to overlay directly over an image base.
156
-------
References:
http://wetlands.fws.gov/index.html
http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html
http://wetlands.fws.gov/Pubs Reports/publi.htm
FY 2008 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
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.
157
-------
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). The Corps is partnering with EPA to ensure that the
version of ORM that is ultimately deployed will adequately track wetlands and other aquatic
resource losses and mitigation. ORM 1.0 has already been deployed in approximately half of the
Corps' 38 districts. The Corps expects to deploy ORM 1.0 in the remaining districts in Fall
2006. Also during Fall 2006, Corps plans to beta test ORM 2.0 in selected Districts before
upgrading all Districts to ORM 2.0 by the first quarter of 2007. This should enable national
reporting in early 2008. Unlike ORM 1.0, ORM 2.0 will have expanded GIS capabilities and
additional mandatory data fields for impact and mitigation data. EPA, other federal and state
agencies, as well as the public will also have expanded access to data in ORM 2.0 via a system
of web-services and web-mapping tools.
ORM 2.0 is being designed to provide improved tracking regarding:
• Type of impacts (i.e., work type)
• Type, quantity and location of aquatic resources impacted (Using Cowardin classification
system)
• Type, quantity and location of aquatic resource mitigation (Using Cowardin classification
system)
• Type and quantity of mitigation by method (i.e., restoration, creation, enhancement, or
preservation)
• Differentiating stream mitigation (in linear feet) from wetlands mitigation (in acres)
• Spacial tracking via GIS enhancements for both impact and mitigation sites (planned)
158
-------
• Functional losses (debits) at the impact site and functional gains at the mitigation site
(credits) if assessment tool is available and applied
FY 2008 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 generally 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
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
Area of Concern Sediment Contamination (This component is not included in SOLEC.
Information from reports of contaminated sediment remediation is collected by
USEPA-GLNPO and is used by GLNPO to evaluate the contaminated sediment
index component of this Index.)
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
159
-------
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, benthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking
water quality, and air toxics deposition), and an indicator for Area of Concern (AOC) sediment
contamination. Each component of the Index is based on a 1 to 5 rating system, where 1 is poor
and 5 is good. Authors 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, other than the AOC sediment contamination component, 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." Contaminated
sediment remediation information is collected in conformance with GLNPO's Great Lakes
Sediment Remediation Project Summary Support QAPP2 (see reference #2 below).
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.
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
160
-------
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." 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: 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. Documentation regarding SOLEC is available on the Internet and from GLNPO4 (see
reference # 4 below).
References:
1. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
2. "Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project Summary Support QAPP." March 2006.
Unpublished - in USEPA GLNPO files.
3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. " Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
4. a. "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP." Unpublished. Prepared as part
of Cooperative Agreement between USEPA and Environment Canada.
b. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2003." ISBN 0-662-34798-6,
Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario, Cat. No. En40-l 1/35-2003E, and U.S.
161
-------
c. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-004. 2003. Available on CD
and online at .
d. 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
e. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2005." Environment Canada,
Burlington, Ontario(Cat No. Enl61-3/0-2005E-PDF) and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chicago (EPA 905-R-06-001), 2006 Available online at
f. 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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Long-term average concentration trends of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye will
decline.
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 FY08, the database will
contain QA/QCed field data from fish collected in 2006 and all QA/QCed analytical data for fish
collected between 1972 and 2005. A new grantee was selected for this program in 2005, thus
delaying the release of analytical data collected in 2004 and 2005 until 2007. Data collected in
2006 is expected to be able to be used for reporting in 2008. 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.)
162
-------
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 400 - 500 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 quality 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
implemented all recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality
standards.
163
-------
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 have an 80% probability to detect a 10% change per year, over three to four sampling
periods, at the 95% confidence level. An official outside peer review of these data is tentatively
scheduled for spring of 2007 to finalize the data quality objective for Element 1 and to create a data
quality objective for Element 2.
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:
Supporting Program Documentation: All journal publications relevant to the Great Lakes Fish
Monitoring Program, final project reports, and quality documentation can be found at the
GLFMP website, http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fish.html.
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.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Long term 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
164
-------
poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
organochlorine pesticides in air and precipitation; however, this Performance Measure addresses
only PCBs. Monitoring results from 2006 will be reported in 2008. Data are reported on a
calendar year basis the second year after collection.
Data Source: GLNPO and Environment Canada are the principal sources of the data for IADN.
Data also come through in-kind support and information sharing with other Federal agencies and
Canada. Only data from US stations in IADN are being used for this measure.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: There are five master IADN stations, one for each
lake, which are supplemented by satellite stations in other locations. The master stations are
located in remote areas and are meant to represent regional background levels. Concentrations
from the master stations are used for the performance measure. Concentrations from the satellite
stations in Chicago and Cleveland are also sometimes used to demonstrate the importance of
urban areas to atmospheric deposition to the Lakes. Air samples are collected for 24 hours using
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
officer 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
165
-------
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. There are common performance standards for PCBs, organochlorine
pesticides, and PAHs. A common calibration standard for PCBs is now used. A jointly-funded
QA officer 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.
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., 2004 data was reported in 2006); the Canadian data may not be available on this schedule;
consequently only US data is being used to report on this measure.
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, and recent intercomparison site data reflect this.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Joint data that has passed quality review will be available
from Canada's National Atmospheric Chemistry (NAtChem) Database and Analysis System,
which includes atmospheric data from many North American networks and is linked from
IADN's website at: The IADN
homepage can be found at < www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/ >. Copies of IADN data are now held in
U.S. and Canadian databases. 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
166
-------
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.
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 2008 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. On
June 19, 2006, the Oswego River, NY AOC became the first U.S. AOC to be officially removed
from the list of U.S. AOCs. 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
167
-------
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.
Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: None.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NA
References:
GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system for 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 2008 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, thus, results from calendar year
2007 remediation will be reported in FY 2008.
Data Source: GLNPO collects sediment remediation data from various State and Federal
project managers across the Great Lakes region that conduct and coordinate contaminated
168
-------
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.
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.
169
-------
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
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percent of goal achieved for implementation of nitrogen reduction practices
(expressed as progress meeting the nitrogen reduction goal of 162.4 million pounds
reduced ) [PART annual output measure-Chesapeake Bay Program]
• Percent of goal achieved for implementation of phosphorus reduction practices
(expressed as progress meeting the phosphorus reduction goal of 14.36 million
pounds ) [PART annual output measure-Chesapeake Bay Program]
• Percent of goal achieved for implementation of sediment reduction practices
(expressed as progress meeting the sediment reduction goal of 1.69 million tons
reduced ) [PART annual output measure-Chesapeake Bay Program]
• Reduce point source nitrogen discharges to the Long Island Sound
• Total nitrogen reduction practices implementation achieved as a result of
agricultural best management practice implementation per million dollars to
implement agricultural BMPs [PART efficiency measure- Chesapeake Bay
Program]
Performance Database: Reducing Pollution Summary (Controlling Nitrogen, Phosphorus and
Sediment.) Implementation of point & nonpoint source nitrogen and phosphorus reduction
practices throughout the Bay watershed, expressed as % of reduction goal achieved. The nitrogen
goal is a 162.4 million pound reduction from 1986 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 175
170
-------
million Ibs (based on long-term average hydrology simulations). The phosphorus goal is a 14.36
million pound reduction from FY1986 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 12.8 million Ibs
(based on long-term average hydrology simulations). Achieving the cap loads is expected to
result in achievement of the long-term restoration goals for submerged aquatic vegetation and
dissolved oxygen. Point source loads are monitored or estimated based on expert evaluation of
treatment processes. Nonpoint source loads are simulated based on reported implementation of
best management practices (BMPs) that reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. The
simulation removes annual hydrological variations in order to measure the effectiveness of BMP
implementation and converts the numerous BMPs, with various pollution reduction efficiencies -
depending on type and location in the watershed - to a common currency of nitrogen and
phosphorus reduction.
Implementation of sediment reduction practices throughout the Bay watershed, expressed as %
of land-based sediment reduction goal achieved. The sediment reduction goal is a 1.69 million
ton reduction from FY 1986 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 4.15 million tons (based on
average hydrology simulations). Achieving this cap load is expected to result in achievement of
the long-term restoration goals for submerged aquatic vegetation and dissolved oxygen. Loads
are simulated based upon reported implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that
reduce sediment pollution. The simulation removes annual hydrological variations in order to
measure the effectiveness of BMP implementation and converts the numerous BMPs, with
various pollution reduction efficiencies - depending on type and location in the watershed - to a
common currency of sediment reduction.
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls. Data have been reported for
calendar years 1985, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and are expected on an annual basis
after 2005. Data are from Chesapeake Bay watershed portions of NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE,
and DC.
The FY 2008 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
calendar year 2007 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for calendar
year 2007 in September 2008
Data Source: Each jurisdiction (NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC) tracks and approves
annual point source effluent concentrations, flows data as well as non-point source BMP data. It
submits the data to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Contact Jeff Sweeney,
j sweeney@chesapeakebay.net.
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
171
-------
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 crop 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 Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP).
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/1127.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/114.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/112.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
What are the model outputs?
The watershed model puts out daily flows and nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads for
input to the water quality model of the Chesapeake Bay. The daily loads are averaged over a 10-
year hydrologic period (1985-1994) to report an average annual load to the Bay. The effect of
flow is removed from the load calculations.
What are the model assumptions?
172
-------
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 of
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 (2007)
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
Input 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 Kate Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov). Quality assurance program
plans are available in each state office.
Data Quality Reviews: All data are reviewed and approved by the individual jurisdictions (NY,
MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC) 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 are 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.
173
-------
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. Cost share programs include state and federal
grant programs that require a recipient match. 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 2007. 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 Reducing Pollution Summary (Controlling Nitrogen, Phosphorus
and Sediment) indicators are published at http://www.chesapeakebay.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/!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/. The indicator and data survey is published at
http ://www. chesapeakebay. net/pub s/2006reports/IndicatorSurvey_Reducing_Pollution_03 2406. d
oc.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percent of point source nitrogen reduction goal of 49.9 million pounds achieved
[PART annual outcome measure- Chesapeake Bay Program]
• Percent of point source phosphorus reduction goal of 6.16 million pounds achieved
[PART annual outcome measure-Chesapeake Bay Program]
Performance Database: Point source nitrogen and phosphorus reductions are reported as % of
goal achieved and pounds. The goal for point source nitrogen reductions is 49.9 million pound
174
-------
reduction from FY 1986 levels. The goal for point source phosphorus reductions is 6.16 million
pound reduction from FY 1986 levels. Point source nitrogen and phosphorus data is reported
based upon monitored results from the previous calendar year.
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/127-data-2002.xls. Data have been collected
1985-2004 and are expected on an annual basis after 2004.
The FY 2008 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
2007 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2007 in September 2008.
Data Source: Each jurisdiction (NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC) tracks and approves
annual point source effluent concentrations and flow data. It submits the data to the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office. Contact; Ning Zhou, zhou.ning@epa.gov.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Point source loads are calculated from measured or
estimated values of effluent flows and concentrations. The Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 4.3
Watershed Model is the tool used to transform calculated point source discharge loads
(generally, from monitored flow and concentration data) to nutrient loads delivered to
Chesapeake Bay tidal waters.
Peer-reviewed methods are employed to estimate point source discharges where measured data
are not available. Refer to: "Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Application & Calculation of
Nutrient & Sediment Loadings - Appendix F: Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Point
Source Loads" at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/! 14.pdf; Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) "Standard Operating Procedures for Managing Point Source Data - Chesapeake Bay
Program" on file for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance Officer, Mary Ellen Ley,
mley@chesapeakebay.net).
The following methods/assumptions pertain to discharge data:
• Monitored discharge data are generated from the EPA-approved standard sampling and
analysis methods and documented in the Data Monthly Reports from facilities to
jurisdictions.
• Discharge data which date to the earlier years of the record are inadequate for many
regions in the Bay watershed; however, the 1986 baseline is consistent throughout the
record.
• Facilities have been added to the point source database over the years, not necessarily
because they physically came on-line, but because they were previously untracked. In
addition, facilities have been turned inactive in the point source database over time
because they went offline or combined with other facilities as new plants.
• Protocols of calculating discharges from measured or estimated flows and effluent
concentrations have been adjusted throughout the data record to better reflect actual end-
of-pipe loads.
• Tributary-specific pollution reduction and habitat restoration plans ("Tributary
Strategies") for some jurisdictions are not final so the goals will be adjusted in the future
175
-------
as jurisdictions update implementation plans that better reflect projected point source
discharges.
QA/QC Procedures: Jurisdictions (NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC) providing point
source effluent data to the Bay Program office are expected to submit documentation of their
quality assurance and quality control policies, procedures, and specifications in the form of
Quality Assurance Management Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans. Jurisdictional
documentation, however, is limited and it is unknown if protocols follow EPA-approved
objectives as established in the "Chesapeake Bay Program Quality Assurance Guidelines and
Requirements" section of the CBP Grant and Cooperative Agreement Guidance, which is
relevant to projects involving the collection of environmental data.
Procedures for compiling and managing point source discharge data at the Chesapeake Bay
Program office are documented in the following EPA-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan:
"Standard Operating Procedures for Managing Point Source Data - Chesapeake Bay Program"
on file for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance Officer, Mary Ellen Ley,
mley@chesapeakebay.net).
Data Quality Reviews: Point source data sets from seven jurisdictions are merged at the
Chesapeake Bay Program office. Continual peer-review of the thoroughness of discharge data
and methods of managing the information by the Point Source Workgroup promotes consistency
and completeness among the jurisdictions of calculated end-of-pipe loads.
Data Limitations: The CBP relies on information submitted and approved by the jurisdictions
(NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC).
Error Estimate: The CBP tries to trace significant variability in the data and limit its impact.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Study/survey design procedures for point source discharges can found at:
• "Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Application & Calculation of Nutrient & Sediment
Loadings - Appendix F: Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Point Source
Loads" at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/114.pdf
• Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) "Standard Operating Procedures for Managing
Point Source Data - Chesapeake Bay Program" on file for the EPA grant (contact:
Quality Assurance Officer, Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net).
The Point Source Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Bay indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=127.
The Point Source Phosphorus Loads Delivered to the Bay indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm? si d=128.
The Wastewater Pollution Controls indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid= 226.
176
-------
The indicator and data survey are published at
http ://www. chesapeakebay. net/pub s/2006reports/IndicatorSurvey_Reducing_Pollution_03 2406. d
oc.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent of forest buffer planting goal of 10,000 miles achieved [PART annual
outcome measure-Chesapeake Bay Program]
Performance Database: Forest buffer planting is reported as % of goal achieved. The long term
goal is to plant 10,000 miles of forest buffers. The information is based on cumulative acres
planted since FY 1997 provided by the states for the previous calendar year.
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/83-data-2002.xls. Data have been collected
1996-2005 and are expected on an annual basis after 2005.
The FY 2008 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
2007 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2007 in March 2008.
Data Source: Sampling design is formulated by the USDA for tracking projects and funds.
Data and metadata are sent to the Forestry Work Group (state-level Departments of Forestry) by
participating state coordinators and field personnel. Geographic Information System maps are
produced by the UMD Center for Environmental Science. Contacts: Sally Claggett,
sclaggett@fs.fed.us and Judy Okayjokay@chesapeakebay.net
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data collected for tracking linear ft, miles, and acres
of forest buffers are measured directly. State data are merged to get cumulative miles.
Submission criteria have been set and agreed to by State agencies. The data are summarized in a
spreadsheet by geographic location with related extent of project sites. A Geographic
Information System (GIS) is used to help generate the indicator data.
Data Quality Reviews: The data are collected by state field personnel and submitted to the
state-level Departments of Forestry for QA/QC checks.
Data Limitations: The data are only as good as the data originally submitted by the states. This
information passes through many hands before being merged into the annual cumulative miles.
Human error enters into this type of record. The data are compiled and released with utmost
attention to accuracy and validation of locations and extents of riparian forest buffers.
Error Estimate: none calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: The indicator is published at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=83.
177
-------
The indicator and data survey are published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2006reports/F orestBuffersRestored_Indicator.doc.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• 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.
178
-------
Standard data collections include hydrographic profiles for temperature, salinity, dissolved
oxygen, and optical properties. Water samples for chlorophyll a and phaeopigments, nutrients,
salinity, suspended sediment, and phytoplankton community composition are collected from the
surface, near-bottom, and variable middle depths.
The objective is to delimit and describe the area of midsummer bottom dissolved oxygen less
than 2 (mg. L).
Details of data collection and methodology are provided in referenced reports.
QA/QC Procedures: NOAA does not require written QA/QC procedures or a Quality
Management Plan; however, the procedures related to data collection are covered in metadata
files.
The SEAMAP Data Management System (DMS) conforms to the SEAMAP Gulf and South
Atlantic DMS Requirements Document developed through a cooperative effort between National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and other SEAMAP participants.
Data Quality Reviews: (1) Essential components of the environmental monitoring program in
the Gulf of Mexico include efforts to document the temporal and spatial extent of shelf hypoxia,
and to collect basic hydrographic, chemical and biological data related to the development of
hypoxia over seasonal cycles. All data collection protocols and data are presented to and
reviewed by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force (the Task
Force) in support of the adaptive management approach as outlined in the Action Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (the Action
Plan).
(2) Biological and environmental data from all SEAMAP-Gulf surveys are included in the
SEAMAP Information System, managed in conjunction with National Marine Fisheries Service
- Southeast Fisheries Science Center (NMFS-SEFSC). Raw data are edited by the collecting
agency and verified by the SEAMAP Data Manager prior to entry into the system. Data from all
SEAMAP-Gulf surveys during 1982-2003 have been entered into the system, and data from
2004 surveys are in the process of being verified, edited, and entered for storage and retrieval.
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.
179
-------
References:
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task force.2001. Action Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Washington,
DC.
Rabalais N.N., R.E. Turner, Dubravko Justic, Quay Dortch, and WJ. Wiseman. 1999.
Characterization of Hypoxia. Topic 1 Report for the Integrated assessment on Hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 15. Silver Spring
Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Hendee, J.C. 1994. Data management for the nutrient enhanced coastal ocean productivity
program. Estuaries 17:900-3
Rabalais, Nancy N., WJ. Wiseman Jr., R.E. Turner ; Comparison of continuous records of near-
bottom dissolved oxygen from the hypoxia zone of Louisiana. Estuaries 19:386-407
SEAMAP Information System http://www.gsmfc.org/sis.html
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in 13 coastal areas
Performance Database: EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" and EPA's WATERS Expert Query
Tool
Data Source: Data regarding impaired segments are from EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" and
EPA's WATERS Expert Query Tool updated every two years when states submit their 303(d)
reports on the status of impaired water segments as required in the Clean Water Act (CWA)
305(b) report. Another source of data is the EPA-approved Decision Documents, the Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for state 303(d) data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To begin, the Decision Documents for each Gulf State
are acquired. The water bodies listed as impaired for Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi are
compared to "Surf Your Watershed" and then to the WATERS Expert Query Tool. Louisiana
and Texas have a different form for their Decision Documents, which include only delisted water
bodies. For these two states only "Surf Your Watershed" and WATERS Expert Query Tool are
used. All the data are cross referenced for discrepancies. Then, tables are created for each
watershed in the Gulf of Mexico Program's Priority Watershed Inventory. In all, 67 tables are
created. These tables include a segment identification number for viewing the water segment on
a map, a link to the URL for "Surf Your Watershed", name of the state basin the segment is
located, the watershed the segment is located, the name of the waterbody, the number and type of
impairment for that segment, and the year the impairment is listed. Delisting information is also
listed in the tables for segments that have that information. The information available for
delisting includes the segment identification number, the waterbody name, what impairment was
delisted, the basis for the delisting, and a link to the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
180
-------
document if it exists. Segments that are shared among two or more watersheds are highlighted
for easier recognition when counting the number of segments duplicated among watersheds.
Shapefiles are acquired from the states that contain the 303(d) (e.g., impaired) segments for that
state. The segments listed in the state shapefile, however, do not always match EPA's ("Surf
Your Watershed", WATERS Expert Query Tool, and Decision Documents). Therefore, it is
sometimes necessary to contact the state for additional shapefiles that contain missing segments.
The data are grouped by watershed with a name to represent the area in the shapefile (ex.
2002_03170009_303d_line). New fields are added to the shapefile such as segment
identification number (matches the number from the tables), TMDL status ("Impaired Water
Segment," "TMDL Completed," "Restored"), number of impairments for that segment, list of
impairments for that segment, and the waterbody name for that segment. Maps are then
generated to show the number of impairments in each watershed. "Impaired Water Segments"
are visible with a red cross hatch, "TMDL Completed" has a yellow cross hatch, and a
"Restored" appears with a blue cross hatch. Each segment is labeled with the identification
number found in the shapefile and the table. All maps include the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
number and the HUC name, legend, scale bar, inset map, GMPO logo, disclaimer for the state if
one was provided, and the date the map was created. In all, 67 maps are created.
QA/QC Procedures: There are three EPA data sources: "Surf Your Watershed," "WATERS,"
and Decision Documents. Each data source is cross referenced with the other two sources to
ensure there are no discrepancies in the listed impaired segments. The EPA data sources are
from EPA- reviewed state documents.
Data Quality Reviews: There are no outside reviews of the 67 tables and maps generated in a
report. However, GMPO is awaiting final approval of new web pages that will display them.
This new site will be a subset of "Surf Your Watershed" and will be labeled as "Surf Your Gulf
Watershed". "Surf Your Gulf Watershed" will detail the impaired segments for the 13 priority
areas.
Data Limitations: Data are updated every two years on "Surf Your Watershed" and in
WATERS Expert Query Tool due to the fact that states submit a 303(d) report every two years
on the status of the impaired segments in each state as required in Clean Water Act (CWA)
305(b) report.
Error Estimate: None identified.
References:
EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/map2.cfm
EPA's WATERS (Watershed Assessment Tracking and Environmental Results) Expert Query
Tool http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/expert_query.html
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Restore, enhance, or protect acres of important coastal and marine habitats.
181
-------
Performance Database: Coastal Emergent wetlands border the Gulf of Mexico and include
tidal saltwater and freshwater marshes and mangroves. Encompassing over two million hectares
(five million acres or more than half of the national total), the Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands
serve as essential habitat for a diverse range of species.
Total wetland loss (coastal and inland) for the five Gulf States from 1780 until 1980 was
estimated to be 40 million square kilometers, approximately 50%. Between 1985 and 1995 the
southeastern U.S. lost the greatest area of wetland (51% of the national total).
Coastal emergent wetland loss for Louisiana represents 67% of the nation's total loss (177,625
hectares or 438,911 acres) from 1978 to 1990.
The Gulf of Mexico Program achieves its acreage goal each year by cooperative funding of
projects that result in the enhancement, protection or restoration of coastal habitat. This coastal
habitat includes marshes, wetlands, tidal flats, oyster beds, seagrasses, mangroves, dunes and
maritime forest ridge areas.
Data Source: The amount of acreage restored, protected and enhanced by the Gulf of Mexico
Program is derived from the individual project's Statement of Work contained within the project
proposal. This acreage is then verified by the EPA Project Officer and by the project's Program
Manager through site visits during the life of the project, quarterly reports submitted to the Gulf
of Mexico Program Office (GMPO), aerial photography, ground-truthing, and digital
topographic. Data verification occurs at the end of the project too.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Gulf of Mexico Program achieves this goal
successfully each year by cooperatively funding restoration projects with our multiple federal
and state program partners. Our partners additionally follow required QA/QC procedures on their
projects and routinely conduct site visits to provide verification of the acreage restored. These
partners and our process to restore, protect and enhance Gulf coastal habitat include:
1. Gulf of Mexico Program Office State Proposal Solicitation through Requests for Proposals
(RFPs)
2. GMP Partnership Challenge Grant Programs
A) National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Cooperative Agreement
5- STAR Habitat Restoration Challenge Grants
Shell Marine Habitat Restoration Grants
B) NOAA Community Restoration Grant Program Supports Gulf Ecological
Management Sites (GEMS)
http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/habitat/hablinks.html
QA/QC Procedures: The projects that are funded are required to provide a QA/QC plan if the
restoration project involves monitoring. In those cases, EPA has documented Assistance
Agreements with QA/QC approved plans. Both NOAA and the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation require QA/QC plans if the projects involve scientific monitoring. Additionally, the
EPA Project Manager is required to conduct site visits, during the duration of the project to
verify actual acreage restored, protected and/or enhanced. QA/QC includes but is not limited to,
182
-------
aerial photography, ground-truthing, transect growth monitoring and routine site visits of all
funded projects.
Data Quality Reviews: Award Process for supporting habitat at restoration projects through
partnership cooperative agreements.
1. Gulf of Mexico Program Office Competitive RFPs
2. GMP Partnership Challenge Grant Program Grants
A) National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
5-STAR Projects - Habitat office staff and team members review proposals, rank
and recommend projects for funding. This review includes identification of any
duplicative proposals already submitted for funding through other grant programs
supported by GMPO, as well as opportunities to broker with other habitat grant
funding programs, i.e. through Coastal America and the Corporate Wetlands
Restoration Partnership Grant Program (CWRP)
Shell Marine Habitat Restoration Grants - Habitat team reviews and ranks
proposals.
B) NOAA Community Restoration Grant Program
Supports Gulf Ecological Management Sites (GEMS). The Gulf of Mexico
Foundation, NOAA and the Gulf of Mexico Program established a Steering
Committee to review and select the NOAA CRP projects for funding. The
steering committee consists of EPA, all GEMS State Managers, NOAA, and
USFWS staff. As with our partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, the review is to ensure there is no duplication of funding and to seek
opportunities for brokering with other restoration grant programs.
Review of the restoration data occurs in the field and through field analysis by the project
manager as the project progresses. This review is accomplished through measures such as aerial
photography, ground-truthing, transect growth monitoring and routine site visits of all funded
projects. Data are verified by EPA and our Program Partners through site visits and quarterly
reports.
Data Limitations: Limitations of use for the data are carefully detailed by the data provider and
project manager for each project that yields acreage. Images and topographic data have routinely
been used for restoration projects and few to no limitations are expected from these datasets
beyond that of image resolution.
Error Estimate: The acreage is documented by the project managers for each project in
required EPA Quarterly Reports. Data are subject to a second verification following the
completion of the project.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
183
-------
• Mean percent stony coral cover in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
(FKNMS) and in the coastal waters of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties,
Florida working with all stakeholders (federal, state, regional, and local)
• Maintain the overall health and functionality of seagrass beds in the FKNMS as
measured by the long-term seagrass monitoring project that addresses composition
and abundance, productivity, and nutrient availability
• Maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and coastal waters of the
FKNMS
Performance Database: As required by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and
Protection Act of 1990, EPA and its partners developed a comprehensive long-term status and
trends monitoring program as a critical component of the Water Quality Protection Program for
the FKNMS. The comprehensive monitoring program was initiated in 1995 and includes water
quality, coral reef and seagrass components. Annual results are reported each year on a fiscal-
year basis. Historically, EPA has provided the majority of funding for the three monitoring
projects, but other agencies (e.g., NOAA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), and
state/local government agencies) also provide significant funding.
Data Source: The Water Quality and Seagrass Monitoring Projects are conducted by Florida
International University's Southeast Environmental Research Center (SERC) and the Coral Reef
Evaluation and Monitoring Project is conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research
Institute. EPA provides funding via cooperative agreements and the other government agencies
provide funds via federal assistance agreements or contracts. Monitoring data are collected each
year on an annual or quarterly basis depending on the project. Results of each monitoring
project are reported in annual reports. The data for each monitoring project is collected and
archived by staff of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute under a cooperative
agreement with the EPA. In addition, the principal investigators for each monitoring project
have developed Web sites where anyone can go and review the data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The comprehensive monitoring program for the
FKNMS was developed by a large group of technically competent and knowledgeable scientists
familiar with the aquatic environment of the Florida Keys and the coral reef ecosystem. For each
monitoring project, EPA worked closely with recognized experts to develop a detailed scope of
work including sampling locations and frequency, parameters, field and analytical methods,
quality assurance/quality control, data management, and reporting. The monitoring program was
designed to provide representative coverage of the entire 2,900 square nautical miles of the
Sanctuary. In general, monitoring sites were located throughout the FKNMS on a stratified-
random basis and were determined to be compatible with EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program protocol (http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/reports/epa904r01002.html).
The overall monitoring program was designed to address the primary objective of the
comprehensive long-term monitoring program for the FKNMS - to provide data needed to make
unbiased, statistically rigorous statements about the "status of and trends in" selected water
quality conditions and biological communities in the Sanctuary. For the monitoring program, the
null hypothesis is that there is no change over time. The field data are tested against the null
hypothesis that no change has occurred. All three monitoring projects (water quality, coral reef
184
-------
and seagrass) have demonstrated the ability to detect change over time and are suitable for
determining the health of the coral reef ecosystem of the FKNMS.
QA/QC Procedures: The principal investigators for each monitoring project developed and
submitted to EPA a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to ensure that the data generated are
accurate and representative of actual conditions and the degree of certainty of the data can be
established. The QAPPs were developed in accordance with EPA guidance documents and the
principal investigators consulted with the Regional QA/QC Officer and the Project Officer for
the monitoring projects. It was required that the QAPP be approved by EPA before any work
could begin on a monitoring project.
Data Quality Review: Through the QAPP, the principal investigators explicitly commit to
incorporating procedures that will reduce random and systematic errors. In addition, the
principal investigators document quality assurance procedures and evaluate the quality of the
data being generated by the monitoring projects. Further, the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAG) of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary reviews and assesses the monitoring
projects and the data they produce on a regular and continuing basis.
Data Limitations: There are no known limitations of the data set.
Error Estimate: Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project - a power analysis was done at
the beginning of the project to determine the limit of detectable change for the point count
method used to determine the percent stony coral cover within the FKNMS. The estimate of
actual performance is accurate to 2.4%.
Water Quality Monitoring Project - the project collects data from 154 sites within the FKNMS
on a quarterly basis. Therefore, error estimates for the 2005 baseline values are mostly due to
the large spatial variability and seasonal temporal variability. Because water quality data are not
normally distributed, the project uses the median as the measure of central tendency. For
chlorophyll a, the interquartile range (IQR) is 0.29 and the median absolute deviation (MAD) is
0.12. The light attenuation kd IQR is 0.12 and the MAD is 0.05. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen
has an IQR of 0.50 and a MAD of 0.26. For total phosphorus, the IQR is 0.90 and the MAD is
0.04.
Seagrass Monitoring Project - benthic plant community structure is measured using the rapid
visual assessment technique known as the Braun-Blanquet method. This method is very quick,
yet it is robust and highly repeatable, thereby minimizing among-observer differences. The
Braun-Blanquet method has proven to be precise enough to detect subtle interannual variations
yet robust enough to survive changes in personnel. Elemental content (carbon, nitrogen, and
phosphorus) of seagrass leaves is determined by cleaning the leaves of all epiphytes, drying the
leaves at low temperature, and grinding to a fine powder. Elemental content is then measured
using established methods and calculating on a dry weight basis. All isotopic analyses are
determined on the material collected for elemental analysis at the SERC Stable Isotope Lab using
standard elemental analyzer isotope ratio mass spectrometer (EA-IRMS) procedures. Analytical
reproducibility of the reported values, based on sample replicates, are better than 0.2%o for 15N
and0.08%0for13C.
185
-------
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The database management system for the
Water Quality Protection Program of the FKNMS is geographic information based (GIS) and
used to record the biological, physical, and chemical results from the comprehensive monitoring
projects. The data from the three monitoring projects are collected and archived by the database
managers at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. The data archives component
encompasses both raw and synthesized data. The data integration component incorporates the
synthesized data, both tabular and geospatial. These data are integrated into a GIS to facilitate
further analysis by scientists and managers. The results data contained within the database
integration system are documented with project level metadata as well as attribute or parameter
level metadata. An Internet Map Service (IMS) is being created to serve the data and this
website will make both data access and mapping capabilities available to users without having
access to expensive GIS-mapping software. An IMS allows users to view and query GIS and
tabular data via a Web browser without having an expensive GIS on their computer. The overall
goal of the database management system is to provide a data integration system that takes into
account the varying levels of data produced by the various monitoring projects and the needs of
both managers and researchers.
References:
http: //sere. fiu. edu/wqmnetwork/
www.serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork
www.fiu.edu/~seagrass
http: //ocean. fl ori damarine. org/fknm s_wqpp
http://re search, my fwc.com/feature s/category_sub. asp?id=23 60
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as measured by total
phosphorus, including meeting the 10 parts per billion total phosphorus criterion
throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh and the effluent limits to be
established for discharges from storm water treatment areas
Performance Database: As required by the Clean Water Act and Florida's Everglades Forever
Act, the oligotrophic Everglades marsh within the Everglades Protection Area must meet the
newly adopted 10 parts per billion numeric criterion for total phosphorus. EPA approved the
criterion and its application methodology in 2005. A monitoring program to determine whether
the criterion is in fact being met throughout the Everglades marsh is necessary to determine
whether the water body can be expected to meet its designated use, whether phosphorus
concentrations are stable or are increasing, whether the concentrations in impacted areas are
improving, and whether watershed phosphorus control efforts costing in excess of $1 billion are
effective.
Data Source: Water quality is monitored throughout the Everglades marsh at dozens of long-
term monitoring stations. These stations are sampled cooperatively in a joint effort by Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management District, Everglades
National Park, and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Some of these stations were
186
-------
monitored previously by the United States Geological Survey beginning as long ago as 1953.
Results of monitoring are reported in annual reports. The data are collected and are available to
the public through a web site. Sormwater Treatment Area (STA) effluent phosphorus
monitoring is in place as required by Florida and NPDES permits.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The monitoring program was developed by scientists,
with decades of experience regarding Everglades water quality and ecology, from the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management District, Everglades
National Park, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and the EPA. The marsh monitoring
program is designed to provide representative coverage of the entire 2,000 square mile
freshwater Everglades. The monitoring program is capable of detecting temporal trends in
phosphorus condition throughout the Everglades. The null hypothesis is that there is no change
over time.
QA/QC Procedures: Field samples are collected by standard sampling protocol and analytical
results are from accredited laboratories using standard methods. In addition, a series of ongoing
laboratory round-robin exercises are overseen by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Field and lab protocol are also periodically reassessed by a Technical Oversight
Committee that includes five Florida and federal agencies. Quality Assurance Project Plans are
in place.
Data Quality Review: Water is sampled in the field by Department of Interior or South Florida
Water Management District technical personnel using established Standard Operating
Procedures. Data are subject to ongoing quality review by the interagency Technical Oversight
Committee on a regular and continuing basis.
Data Limitations: There are no known limitations of the data set.
Error Estimate: Annual average total phosphorus concentrations are accurate to within 1 part
per billion.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: Interagency dialogue and oversight provide
ongoing reassessments that evaluate data credibility and completeness.
References:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/ecoregions/
http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/ema/toc/index.html
http: //www. sfwmd. gov/org/ema/toc/archive s_docs. html
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/assessment/index.htm
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/everglades/roundrobin.htm
http://wwwalker.net/tfSelected%20Publications
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
187
-------
• Additional miles of river and stream corridor reopened to anadramous fish passage
through removal of dams and barriers or installation of by-pass structures such as
fishways [Long Island Sound]
Performance Database: An internal database is under development to track the measure.
Data Source: The states within the Long Island Sound watershed will provide the data to
track this measure. The 2005 cumulative baseline is 81 miles reopened. Long Island Sound
Study, Sound Health 2006 Environmental Indicators:
www.longislandsoundstudy.net/indicators/index.htm on Habitat Protection/River Miles
Restored and Coastal Habitat Restored. Stamford, CT: EPA Long Island Sound Office
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent of the population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories served by
community drinking water systems will receive drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based drinking water standards throughout the year (2005
Baseline: 95 percent of the population in American Samoa, 10 percent in CNMI
(Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), and 80 percent of Guam served by
community water systems received drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards throughout the year.)
Performance Database: SDWIS (Safe Drinking Water Information System) is the database
used to track this performance measure throughout the United States. However, of the three U.S.
territories in the Pacific, only American Samoa has put data into this database on a reliable basis.
(For example, Guam has not entered data in this database in years. We are working with CNMI
and Guam in 2007 to enter data into SDWIS on a reliable basis.) In the interim, in Guam and
CNMI we are working to get the data directly from the public water systems.
Data Source: Health-based violations are either reported by the territories (currently American
Samoa only) or obtained through direct communication with public water systems (currently
Guam and CNMI). Percentage of population served by community drinking water systems
receiving 24-hour water is obtained through direct communication with territory (CNMI only).
Population data are obtained from U.S. Census data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Our method is to calculate the performance measure as
the percentage of people in the territories served by public water systems who are receiving 24-
hour water that meets all health-based drinking water standards (i.e., no health-based violations).
We can provide an aggregate value for the three Pacific territories using a weighted average
based upon their populations. Our first main assumption is that a public water system must
provide 24-hour water on a regular basis before it can provide drinking water that meets all
health-based drinking water standards. This is an assumption that generally does not need to be
made in the rest of the United States; and in the Pacific territories is an issue mainly in the
CNMI. For example, the island of Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands (population 70,000) is
the only municipality of its size in the U.S. without 24-hour water (most of its residents get water
188
-------
only one or two hours per day; all but the poorest residents rely on bottled water or rain water as
the source of their drinking water). This method is suitable for the Pacific islands because the
situation is unique to the Pacific Island territories, and is one of the underlying reasons for the
need to track access to safe drinking water. Our second main assumption is that health-based
violations reported by the territories are correct. Our third main assumption is that US Census
data are correct.
QA/QC Procedures: American Samoa follows QA/QC procedures in the data it submits to EPA
for entry into the SDWIS database. There is no other Quality Management Plan or Quality
Assurance Project Plan currently associated with this indicator.
Data Quality Reviews: Although the territories are responsible for reviewing and assuring
quality of health-based violation reporting, EPA has had to communicate directly with public
water systems in Guam and CNMI to get the data (and continues to do so as part of ongoing
enforcement and compliance efforts). EPA is also in direct communication with the territories to
obtain percentage of population receiving 24-hour water. The US Census is responsible for
reviewing and assuring population data quality. There is no other peer review or external data
quality review.
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) inconsistencies in reporting health-
based violations among territories; and (b) inaccuracies due to imprecise measurement of
percentage of population served by public water systems that receives 24-hour water.
Error Estimate: A quantitative estimate of error in the database is not possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Regarding SDWIS data, EPA will be working with the
territories of Guam and CNMI in 2007 to provide more complete data to assess performance.
Regarding percentage of population receiving 24-hour water, EPA will be working closely with
the CNMI public water system and the CNMI Water Task Force (in the Office of the Governor)
to both more accurately assess percentage of population receiving 24-hour water, and to provide
24-hour water to a greater percentage of the population.
References: N/A.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories will comply 90
percent of the time with permit limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and
total suspended solids (TSS) (2005 Baseline: the sewage treatment plants in the Pacific
Island Territories complied 59 percent of the time with BOD and TSS permit limits.)
Performance Database: ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System) is used to track this
performance measure.
Data Source: DMRs (Discharge Monitoring Reports) provided to EPA on a quarterly basis by
the Pacific Island wastewater utilities are the data source.
189
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Permit conditions require each of the wastewater
utilities to use EPA approved sampling methods. DMRs are self-reported by the Pacific island
utilities to EPA on a quarterly basis for major facilities (greater than 1 million gallons per day of
discharge). The main assumption is that the self-reported data are accurate.
QA/QC Procedures: Each of the Pacific island utility labs has and follows QA/QC procedures
for this data.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA reviews the DMR reports to make sure they are thoroughly filled
out. There are occasional EPA field audits of the utility labs.
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) inconsistencies among personnel in
performing sampling and analysis; and (b) incomplete data due to lack of sampling or lack of lab
equipment.
Error Estimate: A quantitative estimate of error in the database is not possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA maintains communication with each of the utilities to
improve sampling and analysis of BOD and TSS, and to improve reporting of DMRs.
References: N/A
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Beaches in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories monitored under the Beach
Safety Program will be open and safe for swimming 96 percent of days of the beach
season (2005 Baseline: beaches were open and safe 64 percent of the 365-day beach
season in American Samoa, 97 percent in CNMI and 76 percent in Guam.)
Performance Database: PRAWN ((Program tracking for Advisories, Water quality and
Nutrients) is used to track this performance measure.
Data Source: Reports provided to EPA on a quarterly basis by the Pacific Island environmental
agencies (Guam EPA, American Samoa EPA, CNMI DEQ) are the data source.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Pacific Island environmental agencies use EPA-
approved methods to take bacteriological samples at beaches and analyze them in their labs.
They put together reports that include beach sampling data and number of days beaches were
closed or had advisories posted based on bacteriological concerns. The Pacific Island
environmental agencies submit these reports to EPA on a quarterly basis. EPA inputs data from
the report into the PRAWN database. The main assumption is that the Pacific Island
environmental agencies are following the EPA-approved methods for sampling and analysis. The
secondary assumption is that EPA's contractor is correctly entering data from the reports.
190
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Each of the Pacific Island environmental agencies has EPA-certified
laboratories. Part of the certification process is establishing and adhering to QA/QC procedures.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA recertifies the labs on a periodic basis. Data quality from all lab
procedures is reviewed.
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) reporting inconsistencies within the
database among jurisdictions which report on a quarterly basis (as the Pacific territories do) and
on an annual basis.
Error Estimate: A quantitative estimate of error in the database is not possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA maintains communication with the Pacific territorial
environmental agencies on changes in format which make it easier to enter data into the PRAWN
database.
References: N/A.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Acres of wetland habitat and 3,000 acres of upland habitat in the Lower Columbia
River watershed.
Performance Database: The database used to track habitat restoration in the Lower Columbia
River watershed is titled "Regional Restoration Project Inventory". The database includes at a
minimum the following data fields: Project title, lead organization, project partners,
latitude/longitude, and acreage.
Results are updated annually on a fiscal year basis.
Data Source: Habitat restoration data are reviewed through direct communication with multiple
agencies and partners conducting habitat restoration projects in the Lower Columbia River
watershed, and the database is cross-referenced with other state, regional, and federal funding
sources and project tracking databases. Due to the numerous partners involved in each project,
and their involvement in the maintenance of the database, the confidence in the data accuracy
and reliability is high.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Habitat restoration data in the Lower Columbia River
watershed is collected and tracked via direct and ongoing communication with the network of
agencies and organizations conducting habitat restoration in the watershed. The main assumption
for this method is that all agencies and organizations conducting habitat restoration in the
watershed are included in the database review. The acreage indicator chosen is suitable for
progress towards our goal because the restoration projects included in the database protect,
enhance, and restore both wetland and upland habitat.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures do not apply to tracking the Regional Restoration
Project Inventory database. The database is reviewed by entities involved in or conducting
191
-------
habitat restoration projects in the Lower Columbia River watershed. The database is maintained
annually, reviewed internally, distributed to regional entities conducting habitat restoration, and
referenced when reporting several times annually. There is no Quality Management Plan or
Quality Assurance Project Plan associated with this indicator.
Data Quality Reviews: The Regional Restoration Project Inventory is a database and reporting
tool that employs the available level of project detail by multiple agencies and organizations.
This tool is used internally and amongst agencies and organizations conducting habitat
restoration in the Lower Columbia River watershed, therefore peer reviews, audits, and reports
by external groups are not applicable.
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) inconsistencies in or non-standard
methods of acreage measurement, due to multiple agencies and organizations reporting; (b)
inaccuracies due to imprecise measurement of acreage; (c) significant variability in the data, due
to advancements in acreage calculation methods and therefore variable accuracy over time; (e)
incomplete or inaccurate data from agencies and organizations that choose not to submit or
review project data.
Error Estimate: Based on the level of involvement from agencies and organizations conducting
habitat restoration in the Lower Columbia River, the quantitative estimate of actual performance
and calculation of error in the database is not possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The tracking of habitat restoration project data in the Lower
Columbia River watershed will improve with the advancement of tracking technologies,
including GIS analysis, and the maintained communication with agencies and organizations
conducting habitat restoration in the watershed. The management of the database will adapt to
these advancements when technically and feasibly possible.
References: N/A
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 4
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• 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)
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals.
192
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Annual milestones in support of the Multi-Year Plan
for Endocrine Disrupters research are developed and revised during the annual budget and
performance planning process. Self-assessments of progress toward completing these activities
are based on the pre-defined goals.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual milestones be
clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year. Progress
toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research milestones and
outputs being measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program
reviews are used to measure research quality and impact.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Endocrine Disrupters Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/edc.pdf (last
accessed on January 3, 2007)
FY 2008 Performance 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 (PART measure)
Performance Database: Internal Regional EPA tracking system for partners in twenty-three
states.
Data Source: Data are derived from internal assessments of state activities.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data for this measure are collected based on
assessments of the number of states using Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) data to monitor the condition of ecological resources. EMAP data are generated, in
part, by a cooperative agreement with twenty-three states to conduct the National Coastal
Assessment Monitoring survey, which introduces 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.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
193
-------
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
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:
EMAP data, available at: http://www.epa.gov/docs/emap/index.html (last accessed on January 4,
2007)
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.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• 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)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support efficient and effective clean-ups
and safe disposal of contamination wastes.
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of water security initiatives
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of risk assessors and decision-
makers in the rapid assessment of risk and the determination of cleanup goals and
procedures following contamination.
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered on time in support of establishment of the
environmental National Laboratory Response Network
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of HHRA health assessments.
(PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Air Quality Criteria/Science
Assessment documents (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of HHRA Technical Support
Documents (PART Measure)
194
-------
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management Systems (internal database) or other
internal tracking system.
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of a program's long-term goals, each program annually develops a list of key
research outputs scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is finalized by
the start of the fiscal year, and no changes are made after this point. The program then tracks
quarterly the progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-determined schedules
and milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from the original list that are
successfully completed on-time.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual outputs be clearly
defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year. Progress toward
completing these activities is monitored by ORD management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research outputs being
measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program reviews are
used to measure research quality and impact
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Human Health Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/HH%20MYP%20Final.pdf
(last accessed January 3, 2007).
Global Change Research Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/global.pdf (last
accessed January 3, 2007)
Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://epa.gov/osp/myp/HHRA.pdf (last accessed January 3, 2007).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Average cost to produce Air Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents
(Efficiency 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
195
-------
and efficient competitive merit review system (as evaluated by external expert
review) (Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress toward completing
program goals.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The HHRA Program's efficiency measure tracks the
cost to produce AQCDs for use by the Office of Air and Radiation in developing their policy
options for the NAAQS. Total FTE and extramural dollar costs are cumulated over a five year
period and divided by the number of AQCDs produced in this time period, to create a moving
annual average $/AQCD. The Human Health Program's efficiency measure tracks the average
time to process and award grants.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the program activities.
However, other performance measures and independent program reviews are used to measure the
quality and impact of the program.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of
concluded enforcement actions [PART]
• Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that pollution be reduced,
treated, or eliminated [PART]
• Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring implementation of improved
environmental management practices [PART]
• 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
[PART]
196
-------
Performance Databases: The Integrated Compliance Information System Federal Enforcement
& Compliance (ICIS FE&C) database tracks EPA judicial and administrative civil enforcement
actions. The newly enhanced Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS) tracks criminal
enforcement actions.
Data Source: Most of the essential data on environmental results in ICIS FE&C is collected
through the Case Conclusion Data Sheet (CCDS), which 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. Information from the CCDS is used to track progress for several
of the performance measures. The CCDS form consists of 22 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 defendant/respondent, in response to an
order for injunctive relief or otherwise in response to the enforcement action, will: (1)
implement controls that will reduce pollutants; and/or (2) improve environmental management
practices to curtail, eliminate or better monitor and handle pollutants in the future.
The Criminal Enforcement Program also collects information on pollution reductions on a
separate case conclusion data form. The criminal enforcement case conclusion form is being
used in FY07.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For enforcement actions which result in pollution
reductions, staff estimate the amount of pollution reduced for an immediately implemented
improvement, or for an average year once a long-term solution is in place. There are established
procedures to be used by EPA staff to calculate, by statute, e.g., Clean Water Act (CWA), the
pollutant reductions or eliminations. The calculation determines 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: QA/QC procedures [See references] are in place for both the CCDS and
ICIS FE&C data entry. There is a CCDS Training Booklet [See references] and a CCDS Quick
Guide [See references], both of which have been updated and distributed throughout regional and
headquarters= 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 when 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). The Office of Compliance's (OC) 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. To satisfy the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant
197
-------
enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement, OECA instituted a
requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of ICIS information.
In addition, in FY 2003, OC established a quarterly data review process to ensure timely input,
data accuracy, and reliability of EPA's enforcement and compliance information.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in the CCDS and ICIS FE&C are required by
policy to be reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy. ICIS
data are quality-reviewed quarterly, and reviewed and certified at mid-year and end-of-year.
Data Limitations: Pollutant reductions or eliminations reported in CCDS are projected
estimates of pollutants to be reduced or eliminated 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 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 the overall amount of pollutants to be reduced or eliminated
will be prudently underestimated based on CCDS information.
Error Estimate: Not available
New & Improved Data or Systems: In November 2000, EPA completed a comprehensive
guide on the preparation of the CCDS estimates. This guide, issued to headquarters and regional
staff, was made available in print and CD-ROM, and was supplemented in FY 2002 and updated
in FY 2004 [See references]. The guide 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 QMP 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 (CCRS) came on-line during FY 2006 and replaces
the existing criminal docket (CREVIDOC). This new system is more user friendly and allows for
greater tracking, management, and reporting capabilities.
In June, FY 2006, a new version of the ICIS data system, ICIS FE&C, became operational. The
new data system has all of the functionality of old ICIS (ICIS 1.0) but also adds functionality for
tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities. In addition, another component of ICIS,
"ICIS-NPDES" is becoming the database of record for the CWA National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program, including all federal and state enforcement, compliance
and permitting data. States will be migrated in phases to ICIS NPDES from the legacy data
system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS), over a period of about two years. As a state's
data is migrated from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, so too is its NPDES federal compliance and
enforcement data for that state.
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). CCDS: CCDS, Training Booklet, issued November 2000;
198
-------
Quick Guide for CCDS, issued November 2000, and "Guide for Calculating Environmental
Benefits of Enforcement Cases: FY2005 CCDS Update" issued August 2004 available:
http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/resources/ccds/ccds.pdf 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, OECA, ICIS Phase I, 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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site
compliance inspections and evaluations
Performance Databases: ICIS FE&C and manual reporting by regions.
Data Sources: EPA regional offices, Office of Civil Enforcement - Air Enforcement Division
(Mobile Source program), Office of Compliance - Agriculture Division (Good Laboratory
Practices), and the Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division (Wood Heaters).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet, (ICDS) will
be used to analyze results from inspections/evaluations conducted under EPA=s statutes. EPA
will analyze ICDS from on-site complying actions taken by facilities, deficiencies observed, and
compliance assistance provided. The EPA inspectors complete the ICDS for each inspection or
evaluation conducted, and the information is entered into ICIS or reported manually. This
measure was selected because it directly counts the number of times compliance assistance has
been provided and allows for the analysis of the data to determine trends over time.
QA/QC Procedures: The ICIS FE&C data system has been developed per Office of
Environmental Information 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: The information in the CCDS, ICDS and ICIS FE&C is required by
policy to be reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy. In
FY2003, to satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant
enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement, OECA instituted a
requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of information. ICIS
FE&C data are reviewed quarterly and certified at mid-year and end of year.
Data Limitations: ICIS FE&C is the official database of record for all inspections not reported
into one of the legacy data bases (with the exception of the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
inspections in some regions). Legacy databases still operational include Air Facility System
(AFS), FS, PCS, RCRAInfo, National Compliance Data Base System (NCDB), and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) / Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
199
-------
Tracking System (FTTS). Beginning in 2007, NCDB/FTTS inspection data will be reported
into ICIS FE&C. Regions have been encouraged to report all inspection ICDS information into
ICIS. If regions continue to use manual reporting for ICDS, it may result in redundant,
incomplete, or contradictory data.
New & Improved Data or Systems: In June FY 2006, a new version of the ICIS data system,
ICIS FE&C became operational. The new data system has all of the functionality of old ICIS
(ICIS 1.0) but adds functionality for tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities.
Further, ICIS-NPDES is beginning to replace the PCS as the database of record for the NPDES
program, including all federal and state enforcement, compliance and permitting data. (States
will be migrating over to ICIS-NPDES in phases, over a period of about two years.)
References:
» ICIS: U.S. EPA, OECA, ICIS FE&C, implemented June 2006
» ICIS: U.S. EPA, OECA, ICIS-NPDES, implemented June 2006
• Memo dated October 11, 2005: Entering Manually Reported Federal Inspections into
ICIS in FY 2006
• Internal EPA database
• Non-enforcement sensitive data available to the public through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).
FY 2008 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: These measures are automatically produced in the
ICIS database which records the number of entities that received direct assistance from EPA and
report that they improved an environmental management practice and/or report that they
reduced, treated or eliminated pollution as a result of EPA assistance. ICIS produces the
percentage by dividing the number of respondents to each of two follow-up survey questions by
the number of respondents. The figure is aggregated nationally from the regional data. A
percentage measure was chosen to track the goal for year to year comparability as opposed to a
direct number which varies year to year.
200
-------
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
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, ICIS 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
ICIS, March 2005.
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Number of pounds of reduced (in millions) of priority chemicals as measured by
National Partnership for Environmental Priorities members.
• Number of pounds of priority list chemicals removed from or reduced in waste streams
per cost to perform such actions. [PART efficiency]
Performance Database: Under Information Collection Request no. 2050-0190
("Reporting Requirements Under EPA's National Partnership for Environmental Priorities",
renewed April 2006) the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) program
collects information on partner (mostly from the industrial sector, and one municipal facility)
priority chemical reduction commitments, technical solutions proposed to achieve reductions,
and actual reduction achievements. Achievements are verified through discussions between EPA
waste minimization national experts and partner technical personnel, and further verified using
the Toxics Release Inventory system where possible.
NPEP efficiency measure: The denominator of the efficiency measure, or the cost to perform
such actions, equals program cost minus quantifiable benefit per pound of reduction.
Program cost is calculated to be the cost for Federal program implementation (FTE + grant and
contract funding). Industry cost is neutral. Quantifiable benefits include information collected
through NPEP success stories on resource savings (e.g. water, energy) resulting from
implementation of waste minimization technologies and processes.
201
-------
Data Source: As part of their partnership agreement, NPEP partners provide information
concerning what priority list chemicals they commit to reduce, the process through which the
reduction will be achieved, and the time frame for achieving the commitment. When the
commitment is achieved they provide EPA with a "success story" which identifies the actual
achievement, confirms the process used to achieve the reduction, and provides additional
information of interest to the general public and other technical personnel concerning how the
achievement was met. Information is reviewed by EPA waste minimization national experts for
reasonableness based on best professional judgment. An internal tracking system is used to track
pounds committed, achievement date, and actual achievement. NPEP partner achievement data
is further verified against TRI reporting when the partner is a TRI regulated facility. The
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), Section 313
(Toxics Release Inventory) and expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (40 CFR Part
13101; www.epa.gov/tri) requires that regulated facilities report facility-specific, chemical-
specific release, waste and recycling data to EPA.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Regional targets are calculated to meet the national
total goal. This is a new measure which does not have comparable historical data. EPA does not
intend to reconcile FY 08 results with prior years.
EPA waste minimization national experts are trained in industrial or chemical engineering and
have significant experience in evaluating industrial processes for waste minimization potential
and efficiency. Their professional judgment forms the basis for accepting the applicants' waste
minimization commitment and achievement. Additionally, when the partner is also a TRI
regulated facility, achievement data are verified against TRI reporting
QA/QC Procedures:
Internal tracking: EPA engineers review commitment information. In cases where
commitment information is initially incomplete or lacks substantiation, EPA engineers may
conduct site visits in order to make a determination that the commitment is reasonably
achievable. Information on number of pounds committed for reduction, achievement date and
actual achievement is reported by NPEP partners and stored in an internal NPEP tracking
system. Tracking system data are periodically reviewed by EPA regional coordinators to ensure
that they accurately reflects partner commitments. Corrections are made to tracking system data
when they are identified.
TRI Database verification: 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:
202
-------
Internal Tracking data: Tracking system data are periodically reviewed by EPA regional
coordinators to ensure that they accurately reflects partner commitments. Corrections are made
to tracking system data when they are identified.
TRI data: 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, February, 2002,
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: For both internal tracking system and TRI data, 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.
Error Estimate:
Internal Tracking: This is a new measurement tool, implemented with the 2006 - 2011
strategic plan. No error estimate is available at this time. However, EPA is developing an error
tracking process for use in 2007 and should have an error estimate for fiscal year 2007 in early
2008.
TRI data: 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: Use of internal tracking data allows EPA to measure direct
progress resulting from the NPEP program. Historically EPA has measured trends using TRI.
Because TRI data are influenced by a variety of factors, including multiple EPA and State
regulations, voluntary programs, and national economic trends, use of TRI did not allow EPA to
directly measure program results. The internal tracking system is a limited data set and is 100%
reviewed by expert engineers, is a reasonably accurate data set.
References: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/index.htm;
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; www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm
203
-------
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) indices are available at
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program participants (PART
measure)
• BTUs of energy reduced, conserved or offset by P2 program participants (annual
measure)
• Gallons of water reduced by P2 program participants (annual measure)
• Business, institutional and government cost reduced by P2 program participants
(PART measure)
The Agency's Pollution Prevention programs, or results centers, include Green Chemistry,
Design for the Environment, Green Engineering, Regional Offices for Results, Pollution
Prevention Resource Exchange (P2RX), Environmentally Preferable Purchasing, Hospitals for a
Healthy Environment, and Green Suppliers Network. Each of these program/results centers
operates under the principles of the Pollution Prevention Act and works with others to reduce
waste at the source, before it is generated. The 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. Each
program/results center contributes outcome results which are added to the combined flow of
results. Data is rolled up into a single tracking tool: "P2 Program 2011 Strategic Targets -
Contributions by Program.xls," which aggregates annual progress toward the goals.
Performance Database:
Green Chemistry (GC): EPA has developed an electronic database ("metrics" database) that
allows organized storage and retrieval of green chemistry data submitted to EPA on alternative
feedstocks, processes, and safer chemicals. The database was 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 was also
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. The database currently has information on
all technologies received through 2006.
Design for the Environment (DfE): DfE has an evaluation spreadsheet that is populated for all its
programs (i.e., Alternatives to Lead Solder in Electronics, Furniture Flame Retardant
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 vary by project, and generally include measures comparing
baseline technologies or products to safer ones, as well as information on partner adoption and/or
market share of safer alternatives. For example, the DfE Formulator Program tracks the move to
safer chemicals (such as pounds of chemicals of concern no longer used by partners, and
conversely pounds of safer ingredients) and reductions in water and energy use.
204
-------
Green Engineering (GE): GE will be developing an electronic database to keep track of
environmental benefits of GE projects including pounds of hazardous chemicals prevented
and/or eliminated, gallons of water, British Thermal Units (BTUs) and dollars saved and pounds
of carbon dioxide (CCh) emissions eliminated.
Regional Offices: EPA's Regional Offices' (Regions) P2 results come primarily through grants
they award, and results from projects managed by EPA Regional staff. Regional Offices use the
GranTrack database to collect and organize information on the P2 and Source Reduction grants
they award. GranTrack includes multiple information fields covering administrative and
financial aspects of the grants as well as results reported by grantees. The database can be
searched and reports developed in numerous ways, including by Region, type of grant, year grant
awarded, and year of results. Data may be displayed for individual grants or in aggregate
covering multiple grants.
P2Rx: Many state and local P2 programs are currently collecting data on P2 program activities,
outputs, and outcomes to feed into the National Pollution Prevention Results System, which will
provide data on pollution prevention environmental outcomes performance measures.
Standardized metrics have been developed, with definitions, as well as an ongoing system to
gather data on these metrics through the regional P2Rx centers. Over 30 state and state-level
P2 organizations have signed Memoranda of Agreements to provide data. As the system is
implemented, data collected from the programs will be placed first in regional databases
managed by the 8 P2Rx centers and then in a new national database. The system was ready for
initial use on a national scale in Spring 2006. Each P2Rx center now hosts a Regional
Aggregation Module set up to collect data from each program in their region. Actual data entry is
just starting. In order to avoid counting data describing the same results twice in EPA
performance measurement systems, data from work funded by EPA grants reported through the
EPA GranTrack system will be counted in the Regional Center for Results totals, and not in the
P2Rx center totals when that data is also reported to the P2Rx center directly by the grantee.
Since state and other results funded by EPA grants will be reported through the Regional Center
for Results, as just described, the results reported in EPA performance measurement systems
through the P2Rx center will therefore be funded from non-federal sources. As a result, EPA
cannot claim full responsibility for these results. Nevertheless, EPA support for P2 research, such
as technical assistance and outreach through such mechanisms as publications, training, and
information inquiries answered by the 8 P2Rx centers, contributes to national P2 progress even
when there is no direct EPA funding for a specific project. To capture this indirect effect of
EPA's role, 10% of the results reported through the P2Rx center will be counted in EPA
performance measurement systems.
Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E) Program: The H2E program maintains its own
electronic program database. Data is collected voluntarily from Partners on an ongoing and
continuous basis. Data is requested on mercury and waste reduction information broken down
by types of waste. Information on BTUs, gallons of water, and dollar savings are only requested
in award applications.
205
-------
Green Suppliers Network (GSN)'. GSN utilizes a Customer Relationship Management database
(CRM) in partnership with the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program (NIST MEP) to collect performance metrics for the program.
The CRM was originally configured to collect economic information from companies receiving
services through the NIST MEP system. The CRM has been modified to capture the
environmental metrics collected during a GSN review at a company, such as the value of
environmental impact savings identified, energy conserved (BTU, kwh/year), water conserved
(gal/year), water pollution reduced (Ibs/year), air emissions reduced (Ibs/year), hazardous waste
reduced (Ibs/year), solid waste reduced (Ibs/year), and toxic/hazardous chemical use reduced
(Ibs/year).
EPP Center for Results. Results for Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) come from
the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC), the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment
Tool (EPEAT), and Green Janitorial Products. FEC uses the FEC Administrative Database for
storage and retrieval of baseline and annual reporting information from FEC partners. EPP staff
run these reporting data through the Environmental Benefits Calculator to calculate pounds of
hazardous and non-hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved
(among other benefits) on an annual basis. EPEAT-registered manufacturers provide reporting
data via the Green Electronics Council, which collects and organizes EPEAT reporting data. As
with FEC, the EPP team runs these reporting data through the Environmental Benefits Calculator
to calculate pounds of hazardous and non-hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy
conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on an annual basis. For Janitorial Products,
the EPP team will collect annual reporting data from various EPA contacts for EPA's
Environmental Management System (EMS), and then run these data through the Green Cleaning
Calculator to calculate pounds of hazardous pollution reduced. FY 2006 data will be collected in
January 2007. This collection will be the first time FEC uses an online form to collect program
data.
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 public benefit information from the
nominations. The database currently has information on all technologies received through 2006.
Design for the Environment (DfE): The source of DfE's evaluation information varies by the
project and the partner industry. For example, in DfE's Formulator Recognition Program,
partners provide proprietary information on the production volume of their improved
formulations. For other partnerships, data sources typically include technical studies (e.g.,
Alternatives Assessments and Life-Cycle Assessments) and market/sales/adoption information
from sources such as industry associations.
Green Engineering (GE): Data will come from various sources and partners including the
regions, academia and industry. For example, for GE projects related to the pharmaceutical
industry, data will be directly reported by the project leaders. Some information may also come
206
-------
from profiles of recognized projects taken from 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.
Regional Offices: P2 Grant and Source Reduction grant data are secured from grant applications,
grant reports and supplemental forms and entered into the P2 Grant Database, Gran Track.
P2Rx center. See above.
H2E Program: Because the H2E program is a voluntary program, the information collected is
voluntarily submitted by hospital Partners. The H2E program maintains an ICR for the
collection of data which allows EPA to collect data from third parties under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): Data are collected by the GSN Review Team during a GSN
review at the company's facility. This team consists of a "lean" manufacturing expert from the
NIST MEP system and an environmental expert usually from the state environmental agency or
its designee. Lean manufacturing is a business model and collection of methods that help
eliminate waste while delivering quality products on time and at least cost. NIST MEP has a
system of lean experts who assist businesses through the process of becoming more efficient and
cost effective. The metrics are recorded in the final report generated for the company's use and
also are entered into the CRM database by the NIST MEP center. All MEP centers are grantees
to the Department of Commerce and must adhere to DOC's requirements for the collection and
handling of data. These requirements are reinforced by the terms of the "Request for Proposals"
to which each center (e.g., grantee) responds and which must be followed during a GSN review.
EPP Center for Results. For FEC, the data source is federal partners. For EPEAT, the data
source is EPEAT-registered manufacturers of electronic products. For Janitorial Products, the
data source is EPA EMS contacts for procuring janitorial products.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:
Green Chemistry (GC): The public information is tracked directly through internal record-
keeping systems. No models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
Design for the Environment (DfE): Each DfE partnership identifies and focuses on a unique set
of chemicals and industrial processes. For DfE's Formulator Recognition Program, partner-
provided data on production volumes is aggregated to determine the total reductions of
hazardous chemicals achieved through the program. For Lead-Free Solder and Furniture Flame
Retardants, market data for the production volume of the chemical of concern provides the
measure for reduction. DfE's Data Program Tracking Spreadsheet includes the methods and
assumptions for each project's measures.
Green Engineering (GE): The information will be supplied directly by project leaders and/or
academic-industry-region partners. The information will be tracked directly through EPA record
keeping systems. GE's Data Program Tracking spreadsheet includes methods and assumptions.
207
-------
Regional Offices: The data will come from state and other P2 grantees and other sources as
described above. No models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed by EPA
P2Rx: The data will come from state and local P2 programs as described above. No models or
assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
H2E Program: The data comes directly from program Partners, specifically hospitals. No
models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): Data is entered by the NIST MEP. The data is collected using
the standard procedures normally utilized by the environmental agency participating in the GSN
review. A standard set of metrics has been defined by the GSN program and is collected at each
review. The data are aggregated by NIST MEP headquarters and reported to EPA on a regular
basis. These data can also be aggregated by sector. The data are aggregated to maintain
confidentiality for all companies participating in the program. No models or statistical methods
are employed.
EPP Center for Results. For FEC, various assumptions are used to estimate data (starting in
2006) regarding the number of desktops per employee and the average life cycle of desktops.
Also, metric calculations rely on the assumptions that: 1) the EPEAT criteria now qualifying a
product for the "bronze" level (see www.epeat.net for criteria); 2) the weight of recycled desktop
components; and 3)the commercial process for electricity will not change between 2006-2011.
For EPEAT, similar assumptions are made for the weight of plastic components and the weight
of packaging for desktops. In the future, when actual data is used to calculate environmental
benefits each year, these assumptions will no longer be necessary. Instead, the only assumptions
in effect will be that partners report accurate data and those assumptions needed for the
Calculator (to be determined) to translate environmental attributes and activities into
environmental benefits. The Environmental Benefits Calculator assists institutional purchasers
in measuring the environmental and economic benefits of purchasing environmentally preferable
products. For Janitorial Products, the method involves reporting the types of products and work
practices used during routine cleaning activities in office buildings. The Green Cleaning
Calculator assists in calculating pounds of hazardous pollution reduced.
QA/QC Procedures: All Pollution Prevention and Toxics programs operate under the
Information Quality Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines,
last accessed on July 27, 2008 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 the data adequately support the environmental benefits
described in the Green Chemistry Challenge Awards 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
208
-------
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 added to the spreadsheet. DfE determines whether data submitted adequately support the
environmental benefits described.
Green Engineering (GE): Data will be reviewed by the partners including industry, academia,
and the regions. Data will also be reviewed by GE to ensure transparency, reasonableness and
accuracy.
Regional Offices: Data will undergo technical screening review by EPA Regional and
Headquarters staff and their contractor before being placed into GranTrack. Data for projects
managed directly by EPA Regional staff will be reviewed by Regional personnel. Additional
QA/QC steps to be developed, as appropriate.
P2Rx: Data will undergo technical screening review by EPA and other program participants
(e.g., Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx) centers) before being placed in the
database. Additional QA/QC steps to be developed, as appropriate.
H2E Program: Data undergo technical screening review by the grantee (National Center for
Manufacturing Sciences, which administers the program through a subgrant) before being placed
in the database. QA/QC plan is a part of the grant requirement.
Green Suppliers Network (GSN)'. Data is collected and verified under NIST MEP's QA/QC plan.
Each NIST MEP Center must follow QA/QC requirements as grantees to the Department of
Commerce. Additionally, the environmental data are collected under the specific requirements
of the state environmental agency participating in each GSN review. Each state agency utilizes
their own QA/QC plan for data collection because they utilize the data for purposes in addition to
the GSN program.
EPP Center for Results. Regarding FEC, EPEAT, and Janitorial Products, the calculators of
environmental benefits (e.g., the Environmental Benefits Calculator and the Green Cleaning
Calculator) underwent internal and external review during their development phases. The
Environmental Benefits Calculator is still undergoing an external peer review and will not be
finalized until Fall/Winter 2006. Regarding FEC and EPEAT, instructions and guidelines are
provided to partners on how to report data. Their reporting forms are reviewed annually by EPA
management. For EPEAT, EPEAT-registered manufacturers sign a Memorandum of
Understanding in which they warrant the accuracy of the data they provide. For Janitorial
Products, contractors sign a contract stating that they are providing janitorial products according
to certain specifications. For FEC, EPEAT, and Janitorial Products, data undergo an internal
technical review before these data are run through the calculators.
Data Quality Review: All Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) programs operate
under EPA's Information Quality Guidelines as found at
209
-------
http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines (last accessed on July 27, 2008) and under the
OPPT's 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/ (last accessed on July 27, 2008)
Design for the Environment (DfE): Data collected includes those from industry associations and
government reports. Source data is compared with industry trends and examined by industry and
NGO partners.
Green Engineering (GE): Data collected will be reviewed to meet data quality requirements.
Regional Offices: The GranTrack metrics and data system incorporate ideas and system features
from the National Pollution Prevention Results System, developed with EPA support by such
organizations as the Northeast Waste Management Officials Association, Pacific Northwest
Pollution Prevention Resource Center, and National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. Data for
projects managed directly by EPA Regional staff will be reviewed by Regional personnel.
P2Rx: 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.
H2E Program: Not applicable
Green Suppliers Network (GSN)\ Not applicable.
EPP Center for Results. For FEC, data are entered on-line with an additional error-checking
function on the online form. The mechanism by which the EPP program is receiving data from
the Green Electronics Council is still being determined. For Janitorial Products, data quality
review steps (as of 4th quarter 2006) are still under development.
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.
210
-------
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 and/or available due to various reasons including CBI. In those instances, the data
have to be carefully evaluated and considered for reporting. If the information is included, the
uncertainties/limitations will be noted
Regional Offices: Limitations arise from the reliance on individual state and other P2 grantees
and other sources 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 changes
described below to add consistent metrics and definitions, some differences exist. EPA is
attempting to address these concerns by strengthening reporting requirements in its P2 grants,
focusing on outcomes, and standardizing GranTrack metrics with those in the National P2
Results System. EPA is also in the process of adding a P2 component to the EPA Information
Exchange Network (which provides financial support and a comprehensive data system to link
state data with EPA).
P2Rx: 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 development of core measures and
a data dictionary, differences in reporting exist among data sources. EPA is attempting to address
these concerns by working with the groups described above who have been partners in the
development of the National Pollution Prevention Results System. EPA is also in the process of
adding a P2 component to EPA Information Exchange Network
H2E Program: Not all hospital Partners have turned in their facility assessment information.
However, in order to be considered for an award under the program, hospital Partner MUST
submit facility information; therefore, the program has a very complete set of information for
hospital Partners who have applied for awards. This introduces self-selection bias to the reported
data as the hospitals with the best track records are those that apply for the awards. The program
has roughly 10% of all Partner facilities' assessment data. An internal assessment conducted of
data collected from Partners revealed some calculation errors and data inconsistencies regarding
how waste data is captured by the hospital Partners. The program has gone back to correct some
of those errors.
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): Limitations arise from the reliance on individual programs to
gather data. These programs vary in attention to data collection from sources within their
jurisdictions, data verification and other QA/QC procedures. The GSN program has attempted to
address these concerns by strengthening the data collection requirements in the Request for
Proposals that MEP centers must be respond to in order to perform a GSN review.
EPP Center for Results. FEC and EPEAT have a built-in reliance on partners for data reporting.
Error Estimate:
211
-------
Green Engineering (GE): There may be instances in which environmental benefits are not
clearly quantified. In those instances, the data will be excluded.
Design for the Environment (DfE): The program simply compiles data and does not conduct
statistical analysis. Error estimates are not available
H2E: The program does not use a statistical approach to collect the data and therefore does not
have confidence intervals for the performance estimates.
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): Not applicable.
EPP Center for Results. Any errors detected during internal technical review of performance
data submitted would be addressed, either through correction of data or elimination of data.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Regional Offices: EPA recently updated and expanded GranTrack, both to improve usability and
to add a much greater level of detail regarding results reported by grantees. In regard to reporting
of results, GranTrack includes activity measures, behavioral measures, and outcome measures.
The metrics chosen and their definitions generally are consistent with those used in the National
Pollution Prevention Results System, described in the P2Rx center. Also, EPA is planning to
grant the public restricted access to GranTrack. The following fields will be accessible: general
information, projects and results data, status of grant, funding, keywords, partners, and sectors.
P2Rx: This center's data collection system is currently under initial implementation through the
partnership described above.
H2E Program: The program is currently beta-testing new facility assessment software which
will help hospital Partners collect and compute facility environmental improvement data. The
software automatically converts units and tabulates information from the hospital's source data,
as well as calculating costs for different waste streams. Anticipated roll-out for the software will
be in 2007.
EPP Center for Results. FEC will use additional on-line data entry forms in 2007.
References:
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/
Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E):
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pollutionprevention/pubs/h2e.htm
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): www.greensuppliers.gov
EPP Center for Results. Information about FEC's annual reporting is on the FEC web site at:
212
-------
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/report.htm
Information about the Environmental Benefit Calculator is on the FEC web
site at:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources/docs/enbencalc.pdf
The EPEAT Subscriber and License Agreement is available on the EPEAT web
site at: http://www.epeat.net/docs/Agreement.pdf
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Reductions of hazardous chemicals per federal dollar spent (Ibs/dollar) [PART
efficiency measure]
EPA measures the accomplishments of the Design for the Environment's (DfE) Formulator
Recognition Program by comparing reductions in hazardous chemicals achieved to program
resources, including FTE, overhead and extramural dollars spent. The Formulator Recognition
Program works with formulators of chemical-intensive products to reduce the use of hazardous
chemicals through green chemistry innovations. DfE partners provide information on levels of
reduction.
Performance Database: The DfE formulator program collects confidential data each year from
a sample of partner companies and enters the information into the formulator program tracking
component of the DfE program evaluation spreadsheet. Key data elements used to calculate the
efficiency measure are the quantity of hazardous chemicals reduced through reformulation by
product type, and spending information obtained from the OPPT Finance Central database. The
efficiency measure numerator is the sum of the average pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced
per formulation multiplied by the annual quantity of each formulation. The denominator is the
annual program resources expended.
Data Source: Partners voluntarily provide information on the pounds of hazardous chemicals
reduced per formulation and the annual production of those formulations. Resource data is from
OPPT internal sources.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data on reductions of chemicals are averaged with
information from previous years to create an average annual quantity of hazardous chemical
reduced per formulation and multiplied by the total number of formulations recognized by the
program. The result is the total annual reduction in pounds of hazardous chemicals. The method
aggregates across all formulators and assumes that the entire quantity of recognized formulations
is reformulated. Program resources are calculated directly from EPA figures. The efficiency
measure corresponds directly to the program goal of cost-effectively reducing hazardous
chemical use and can compare cost effectiveness year-to-year.
QA/QC Procedures: Design for the Environment operates under EPA's Information Quality
Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html and under the OPPT
Quality Management Plan.
213
-------
Data Quality Reviews: Data undergo a technical screening review by DfE staff before being
added to the program tracking spreadsheet.
Data Limitations: The data submitted voluntarily by partners is confidential. The information
made public information is limited to aggregated values. In addition, only nine formulators are
represented in each annual sample to reduce reporting burden, which may contribute to sampling
error.
Error Estimate: Due to the sampling methodology, no error estimate is possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Each year additional data is added to the program tracking
spreadsheet and averaged with preceding years. Cumulative data will provide a more stable
estimate of total pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced through the DfE formulator program.
References:
http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html
The DfE Program Tracking Spreadsheet for chemical formulators contains Confidential Business
Information.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Reduce water use at Performance Track facilities
• Reduce hazardous materials use at Performance Track facilities
• Reduce production of greenhouse gases at Performance Track facilities
• Reduce toxic releases to water at Performance Track facilities
• Reduce combined NOx, SOx, VOC and PM emissions at Performance Track facilities
Performance Databases: In 2003, EPA developed an electronic database, Performance Track
On-Line (a Domino database) which facilities use to electronically submit their environmental
performance data. The data are stored in Performance Track Online as well as in the
Performance Track Members Database (a Microsoft Access database).
Members report on results in a calendar year. Fiscal year 2008 data represents members'
calendar year 2007 performance. That data will be reported to the Performance Track program
by April 1, 2008. The data will then be reviewed, aggregated, and available for external
reporting in September 2008. (Calendar year 2008 data will become available in September
2009.)
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, as described below, Performance Track staff visit up to 10%
of Performance Track member facilities each year. In addition, 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 audits of their EMSs, which create a basis for confidence in the
facilities' data.
214
-------
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data collected from members' applications and
annual performance reports are compiled and aggregated for the externally-reported indicators.
Performance Track members commit to two to four environmental improvements, selected from
a comprehensive list of environmental indicators. Facilities then report on their performance in
these indicators over a three-year period of participation. Because facilities choose the areas in
which they will report, the externally reported indicators (listed above) may or may not be
included in any particular facility's set of reported indicators. If a facility does not include one
or more of the above indicators as one of its commitments, then its performance for that
indicator, either positive or negative, will not be included in EPA's aggregated data for the
indicator.
The data reflect the performance results across the entire facility, and are thus considered
"facility-wide" improvements. Members are not permitted to report on environmental
improvements for a subset of the facility; rather, the data reported must represent the
performance for the given indicator across the entire facility. Performance Track staff ensures
that all improvements are facility-wide by conducting a thorough technical review of the
submitted performance data. Any data that are determined to not reflect the entire facility's
performance is either revised or excluded from the aggregated and externally reported results.
EPA believes that this review process minimizes instances of reporting on non-facility wide
improvements.
The data are normalized for production rates or other rates of output at the facilities. Normalized
results take into account production or output changes at facilities.
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 group of facilities constantly changes. In a few instances,
members make replacement commitments due to closure of certain product lines or other major
business changes.
Due to unavoidable issues regarding the timing of the application period, a small subset of
reported data will represent performance improvements over two years for the facilities' first
reporting year.
QA/QC Procedures: Performance data submitted to the program are reviewed for completeness
and adherence to program requirements, and undergo a technical screening review by EPA and
contractor staff. The quality of the data, however, is dependent on the quality of the
measurement or estimation at the facility level. In cases where it appears possible that data is
miscalculated or misreported, EPA or contractor staff contact the facility and request resubmittal
of the data. 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.
215
-------
As described, Performance Track is quality controlled to the extent possible, but is not audited in
a formal way. However, Performance Track staff visit up to 10% 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. Additionally, 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 audits of their EMSs, which increases confidence in the facilities'
data. The independent assessment became a requirement in 2004.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A.
Data Limitations: Potential sources of error include miscalculations, faulty data collection,
misreporting, and nonstandard reporting on the part of the facility. 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 (through the
Performance Track On-Line system), thus avoiding the need for manual data entry. This has
also allowed for improved standardization of data collection. Additionally, the program has
implemented a new requirement that all members receive an independent assessment of their
EMSs prior to membership. Lastly, the program has reduced the chances that data may not
reflect facility-wide data by addressing 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.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• 75% of innovation projects under the State Innovation Grant Program and other
piloting mechanisms will achieve, on average, 8.0% or greater improvement in
environmental results from a project initiation baseline measure for the sectors and
facilities (e.g., reductions in air or water discharges, improvements in ambient water
or air quality, or improvements in compliance rates) or a 5% or greater
improvement in cost-effectiveness and efficiency. In FY08, six (6) projects will be
reaching completion, at which point they are evaluated, and the target is for five (5)
to meet the performance goal
Performance Databases: The Office of Environmental Policy Innovation (OEPI) maintains an
EPA-internal database, the "State Innovation Grant Database" (a Lotus Notes - Domino
216
-------
database) to retain and organize data on competition, award and project performance for its State
Innovation Grant Program. The data base is managed by OPEI and access within the Agency
can be granted to EPA project officers and program officials. In the past, we have granted access
to this database to the Office of the Inspector General for use in a program evaluation. Data
entry is performed by staff within OEPI. Within the sections on project performance, the
database includes all available quarterly project progress reports and final project reports.
Quarterly reports are timed to the lifecycle of an individual project rather than all projects on a
fixed date. These reports include document in MS Word and WordPerfect formats as well as
spreadsheets, all generated by the State Grant recipients to track their project milestones
identified in the final project work plan. Beginning in 2006, OEPI will use the data to generate
an annual performance report for the State Innovation Grant program. The projects funded by
the grant program typically have a 2-4 year lifetime and during that period, each project reports
on a quarterly basis and provides a final project outcome report at the termination of the project.
Projects implemented under the State Innovation Grant Program typically do not show
measurable environmental outcomes until the programs initiated under the grants are fully
implemented. For example, a State implementing an Environmental Results Program for a
particular business sector may take up to three years to develop the compliance assistance
program and operator manuals, conduct a baseline assessment of performance, implement the
compliance assistance workshops, provide adequate time for businesses to fully adopt the
program and then conduct a performance assessment for a statistical sample of hundreds of
facilities state-wide. Dates captured in the project quarterly reports provide information on
attainment of operational milestones and outputs. The final reports are expected to provide
measurement of first, second or third order outcomes to assess the success of the project. This is
significant because outcome measurement is not possible until the grant project is completed.
Only milestones and output measurements (e.g., development of a compliance handbook,
compliance assistance workshops) are available during the operation of the individual projects.
Thus, performance assessment occurs only at the end of a project. Projects we will report on in
2007 are projects initiated in 2003 and 2004.
Data Source: Data on performance are reported by the States for projects funded under the
State Innovation Grant Program. Data are collected by the States using a variety of mechanisms
depending upon the specific projects. For instance, for Environmental Results Programs (ERPs),
the State prepares a compliance manual for a specific business sector and a compliance
worksheet. Participating operators self-certify their performance using the worksheet and its
checklist. The States audit statistically random samples of the participating facilities and certify
the performance of these facilities independently. States are required to report only composite
data for these projects. Other types of projects may rely on a facility's environmental monitoring
conducted under a permit to certify performance. Only rarely are new data required for a State
Innovation Grant Program project. We rely heavily on existing performance assessments
conducted under permitting programs to assess baseline and outcome performance improvement.
For instance, the grant program has funded several facility environmental management systems
(EMS). Facilities typically have independent third-party audits of their EMSs, which create a
basis for confidence in the facilities' data. In general EPA is confident that the externally
reported results are a fair representation of members' performance.
217
-------
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Performance assessment methods will vary across
project types in this program. For instance, ERPs focus on improvement in compliance rates and
program efficiency. Compliance rates are determined by a statistically-based sample audit of
participating facilities within an ERP sector by the State. Currently, the State Innovation Grant
program is sponsoring ERP projects in a number of business sectors (dry cleaning, printing, auto
body repair, auto salvage, Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), Injection Wells, Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), Oil and Gas well drilling and operation, dental facility
mercury management, etc). Some of these facilities will report compliance based upon
operational processes. Others may be able to go beyond compliance reporting and provide
estimates of pollution prevention (e.g., pounds of mercury recovered from dental amalgam).
Other project types, such as Environmental Management Systems will typically will utilize
facility monitoring protocols developed for their permits and use those to develop assessments of
improvements in emissions and discharges. Where EMS-driven projects also develop
engineering estimates of improvements in pollutant discharges brought about by manufacturing
changes, those estimates would require verification related to any alteration in permits.
Analysts should bear in mind that these projects almost never produce incremental
improvements across their lifetime (e.g., in a 3-year project, one third of the projects proposed
benefits will not occur in each year. Rather, project outcomes are generally measurable only at
the completion of the project which marks full implementation. In a number of instances, full
implementation may require time beyond the grant-funded project period. In these instances we
have sought commitments from recipient-states to continue measuring performance and
reporting to EPA after the grant project itself has been completed. The significant impact on the
State Innovation Grant program is that outcomes reported in any year will reflect completion of
projects initiated 2-4 years earlier and not incremental benefits during the lifetime of a project.
Thus, reporting of outcomes in 2007 will be based upon projects funded in FY 2003 and FY
2004.
QA/QC Procedures: Each project funded under the State Innovation Grant Program is
required to develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that is compliant with EPA
guidance. The QAPP is reviewed by the designated QA official from the appropriate EPA
Region and OEPFs QA reviewer. States must have an approved QAPP before the beginning of
any data collection. OEPI has prepared guidance for state grant recipients on development of
performance measures and quality assurance plans. OEPI also requires participation by each
new state grant recipient in an annual training workshop that addresses these areas. Additionally,
final project reports will be made available to other States and to the public for examination.
EPA is also a partner with State Innovation Grant recipients in the conduct of open forums for
discussion of projects, such as the ERP All-States Meeting held annually to allow open
examination of progress and results in each of the ERP projects.
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.
Manually entered data are sometimes typed incorrectly.
218
-------
Because States are required to submit only synoptic (or meta) data with regard to program
performance, we rely on the States to apply the appropriate steps to ensure data accuracy and
appropriateness of analysis as described in their QAPP. In 2007, OEPI will initiate a post-award
monitoring program that will include steps to audit reporting under the State Innovation grant
Program.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
References: Information on the State Innovation Grant Program, including State pre-proposals
and final workplans can be found on the program website at:
http:/www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants. OEPI anticipates publication of its first State
Innovation Grants Program progress report in early 2007.
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2008 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 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 -
"Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country." EPA staff use the Objective
5.3 Reporting System to establish program performance commitments for future fiscal years and
to record actual program performance for overall national program management. The Objective
5.3 Reporting System serves as the performance database for all of the annual performance
measures and PART measures.
Data Source: Data for the Objective 5.3 Reporting System are input on an ongoing basis by
Regional tribal program project officers, as designated by the Regional Indian Coordinators. All
persons authorized to input data have individual passwords.
The original documents for the statements and data entered into the fields of the Objective 5.3
Reporting System can be found in the files of the Regional Tribal Project Officers overseeing the
particular programs that are being reported on. For example, documents that verify water quality
monitoring activities by a particular tribe will be found in the files of the Regional Water 106
Project Officer for the tribe.
219
-------
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-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, "Percent of Tribes with EPA approved multi-media workplans,"
tracks the number of tribes with: Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs); Tribal Environmental
Agreements (TEAs), Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III; Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs); and
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), which demonstrate Tribe building. 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, "Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian Country
per million dollars," is calculated annually by summing the number of tribes receiving General
Assistance Program (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.
(www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/index.html)
220
-------
Data Quality Reviews: The certifying official for the information submitted by EPA's Regional
offices to AIEO through the Objective 5.3 reporting System is the Regional Administrator.
However, in some cases the Regional Administrator may wish to delegate the signatory authority
to some other official such as the Regional Indian Coordinator. The Regional Administrator or
his/her designee will be responsible for certifying that the information in the Objective 5.3
Reporting System, and hence the information which supports the performance measures and
proposed PART measures is accurate. This procedure generally follows guidance provided in
EPA Information Quality Guidelines. (http://www.epa.gov/quality/information
guidelines/index.html)
Data Limitations: Because data are input by EPA's Regional Project Officers on an ongoing
basis, there may be slippages between the time a tribal program status has been achieved and the
entering of that data into the Objective 5.3 Reporting System. Even though the Regional Project
Officer may enter data on an ongoing basis, at the end of the reporting cycle the Objective 5.3
Reporting System will be "locked down," with the locked dataset reported for the fiscal year.
EPA's Regional Administrator certifies the accuracy of the locked information
Error Estimate: For the Objective 5.3 Reporting System, errors could occur by mis-entering
data or neglecting to enter data. However, the data from each region will be certified as accurate
at the end of each reporting cycle; error is estimated to be low, about 1-2 percent.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Objective 5.3 Reporting System, is a part of the AIEO
Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture, and is a part of the same Life Cycle milestones of that
system. Presently, plans are to focus on Operations and Maintenance activities for the Tribal
Program Enterprise Architecture beginning FY08.
References:
Objective 5.3 Reporting System: https://iasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TATS/tats_prv/entry_page
User id Hue
Password testl
OCFO Information Quality Guidelines: http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.htm
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Average time to hire non-SES positions from date vacancy closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in working days [PART efficiency measure]
The data are expressed in the following manner: Average number of days (where the time
to extend an offer for each vacancy is averaged); EPA's fiscal year goal is 45-days
Database: Data are derived from EZ-Hire. This is the database that applicants use to apply for
jobs at EPA. This data are tracked internally and reported on a fiscal year and quarterly basis.
221
-------
The data are reported by the servicing human resources office and rolled up into Agency-wide
averages.
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. OHR uses EZ-Hire to generate a raw data report on a quarterly basis (after the
quarter has been completed). The data are downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet and are tracked
by vacancy announcement number and formatted into the various components of the Office of
Personnel Management's (OPM) 45-day Hiring Model. OHR staff review the results, and
identify any anomalies that may need further investigation. The draft report is then sent to the
servicing HR Offices so the data can be validated, corrected, and ultimately transferred to the
OHR to be finalized. HR Offices also work with the Selecting Officials to develop explanatory
justifications for those vacancies which exceeded the 45-day timeframe.
QA/QC Procedures: EZ-Hire tracks vacancy announcement activity from the time the
announcement opens until a job offer is made to a candidate by the Selecting Official.
Data Quality Reviews: OHR staff review and analyze the raw data, prior to it being provided to
the HR Offices for validation. Local HR Offices review and validate the data, identify anomalies
or data-entry errors, make corrections, and provide the updated information to OHR so that the
report can be finalized. Questions about the data or resolution of issues of concern are frequently
resolved through discussion and consultation with OHR.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: EZ-Hire system provides adequate data for analysis of the
average time to hire for non-Senior Executive Service (SES) applicants. However, we anticipate
the need for additional programming (to be done by the EZ-Hire Contractor) to enable the
system to track additional data required by OPM.
References: EZ-Hire
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Average time to hire SES positions from date vacancy closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in working days
These data are tracked manually on a weekly basis and reported on a quarterly basis. The data
are reported by servicing human resources office and are expressed as an average number of
days (where the time to extend an offer for each vacancy is averaged for that servicing HR
office)
222
-------
Performance Database: Data are manually maintained by the Executive Resources Staff (ERS)
in a Word format. Data are updated thorough-out the various stages of the hiring process.
Data Source: The Office of Human Resources' Executive Resources Staff.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data from the weekly report are tracked and reported
quarterly. ERS staff reviews the results and further investigates any data anomalies prior to
finalizing the quarterly report.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are added as vacancy status changes. The weekly report is reviewed
by the ERS Team leader. Questions about the data or resolution of issues of concern are
frequently resolved through discussion and consultation within the team.
Data Quality Reviews: ERS staff review and analyze the raw data, prior to being provided to
the Team leader for validation. The Team leader reviews the data, identifies anomalies or data-
entry errors, and provides the updated information to OHR so that the report can be finalized.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The current system is sufficient for tracking the SES hiring
activities, given the small number of positions filled annually, about 12 per year.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percent increase in the number of non-SES managers and supervisors at the
targeted proficiency level (intermediate) for Interpersonal Skills and Oral
Communication
• Percent increase in the number of non-SES managers and supervisors at the
targeted proficiency level (advanced) for Interpersonal Skills and Oral Communication
Database: EPA will use an OPM-supplied database and assessment tool. The database is
populated with competency/skills of federal leaders that are deemed necessary for successful
performance. It includes survey data resulting from employee self-assessments and supervisory
assessments on employee HRM competency/skills.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Survey data will be used to identify current
competency/skills of the Agency's leadership population. Assessment data will be compared to
the competency/skills EPA determines are necessary for mission accomplishment to arrive at a
baseline assessment.
Yearly competency assessments of Agency leaders will be completed and compared to the
baseline.
223
-------
QA/QC Procedures: The Office of Human Resources will utilize a skills assessment to
determine if the individual leader is making progress in reaching the targeted level of proficiency
level. The assessment will include input from various sources (e.g. peers and supervisors).
Leaders may also provide self reports on their own progress.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: A true assessment of progress is contingent on obtaining independent,
verifiable information which describes the progress made. In the arena of competency
assessment/human behavior, only a handful of such tools exist for which the results are valid,
verifiable and reliable. In addition, competency development efforts are multifaceted (including
training, development assignments, mentoring, and others). Participation in these types of
programs is essential to the overall competency building effort.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems:
In FY2006, EPA used the Devine Inventory for a baseline assessment of career SES. For the
remaining leaders, the Agency will transition from the baseline instrument, Devine Inventory, to
another, yet to be selected, and an emphasis will be placed on making a smooth transition on
assessment use.
References: EPA 's Business Case for Leadership as Mission-Critical Occupation for Ql, FY06.
There are no prior data or references available for the actual competency/skills assessment tool.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption in EPA's 29 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.
224
-------
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Number of major EPA environmental systems that use the CDX electronic
requirements enabling faster receipt, processing, and quality checking of data.
• Number of states, tribes, and territories that will be able to exchange data with CDX
through nodes in real time, using standards and automated data-quality checking.
• Number of users from states, tribes, laboratories, and others that choose CDX to
report environmental data electronically to EPA.
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. The records of registration provide an up-to-date, accurate count of users. Users
identify themselves with several descriptors and use a number of CDX security mechanisms for
ensuring the integrity of individuals' identities.
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:
Charles Freeman 202-566-1694] to incorporate new technology and policy requirements and will
undergo another revision by December 2006. 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 completed its last independent security risk assessment in January
2005, and all vulnerabilities are being reviewed or addressed. In addition, routine audits of CDX
data collection procedures, statistics and customer service operations are provided weekly to
225
-------
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. In addition, environmental data
collected by CDX is delivered to National data systems in the Agency. Upon receipt, the
National systems often conduct a more thorough data quality assurance procedure based on more
intensive rules that can be continuously changing based on program requirements. As a result,
CDX and these National systems appropriately share the responsibility for ensuring
environmental data quality.
Error Estimate: CDX incorporates a number of features to reduce errors in registration data
and that contribute greatly to the quality of environmental data entering the Agency. These
features include pre-populating data either from CDX or National systems, conducting web-form
edit checks, implementing XML schemas for basic edit checking and providing extended quality
assurance checks for selected Exchange Network Data flows using Schematron. The potential
error in registration data, under CDX responsibility has been assessed to be less than 1 %.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: CDX assembles the registration/submission
requirements of many different data exchanges with EPA and the States, Tribes, local
governments and the regulated community into a centralized environment. This system improves
performance tracking of external customers and overall management by making those processes
more consistent and comprehensive. 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 additional automated quality assurance procedures for the system and reduce human
error.
References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent of Federal Information Security Management Act reportable systems that
are certified and accredited.
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
226
-------
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://cfint.rtpnc.epa.gov/assert/; NIST Special Publication 800-26, Security
Self Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems, November 2001:
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/index.html: and, Federal Information Security
Management Act, PL 107-347: http://csrc.nist.gov/policies/FISMA final.pdf
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction;
environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action;
and return on the annual dollar investment, as a percentage of the OIG budget, from
audits and investigations
• Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions
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. OIG performance measures are
designed to demonstrate value added by promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and
preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse as described by the Inspector General Act of
1978 (as amended). Because intermediate and long-term results may not be realized for several
years, only verifiable results are reported in the year completed. Database measures include
numbers of: 1) recommendations for environmental and management improvement; 2)
legislative, regulatory policy, directive, or process changes; 3) environmental, program
227
-------
management, security and resource integrity risks identified, reduced, or eliminated; 4) best
practices identified and implemented; 5) examples of environmental and management
improvements made; 6) monetary value of funds questioned, saved, fined, or recovered; 7)
criminal, civil, and administrative actions taken, 8) public or congressional inquiries resolved;
and 9) certifications, allegations disproved, and cost corrections.
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 General17, 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.
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 and difficulty in verifying a nexus between our work and subsequent actions and
impacts beyond our control. Errors tend to be those of omission.
Government Auditing Standards (2003 Revision), General Accounting Office, GAO-03-673G, June 2003;
Available on the Internet at www.gao.gov/govaud/ybk01.htm, last updated December 18, 2006
228
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OIG developed the Performance Measurement and
Results System as a prototype in FY 2001 and constantly revises the clarity and quality of the
measures as well as system improvements for ease of use. During FY 2006, we gave staff
briefings on the application of OIG measures and the OIG Performance Measurement and
Results System. We expect the quality of the data to continue improving as staff gain greater
familiarity with the system and measures, and we will enhance this system by linking it to a
follow-up process to better track actions and impacts. We also anticipate creating linkages to
customer satisfaction results and resource investments, to 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.18
18 U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Evaluations, and Other Publications,
Available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/oig, last updated December 12, 2006
229
-------
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2008 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)
Performance Databases:
Emissions Tracking System (ETS) - 862 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 2008 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 2008 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 2008 Performance Measure:
• 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 2008 Per for ma nee 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:
AOS: 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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Millions of tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) reduced since 2000 from mobile
sources. (PART measure)
• Millions of tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
(PART measure)
• Tons of particular matter (PM 10) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources (PART
measure)
• Tons of particular matter (PM 2.5) reduced since 2000 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 2008 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 (NET) for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
• EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization
12
-------
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
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.
13
-------
Once the EMS-HAP process has been performed, the EPA would tox-weight the inventory by
"weighting" the emissions for each pollutant with the appropriate health risk criteria. This would
be accomplished through a multi-step process. Initially, pollutant by pollutant values would be
obtained from the NEI for the current year and the baseline year (1990/93). Conversion of actual
tons for each pollutant for the current year and the baseline year to "toxicity-weighted" tons
would be accomplished by multiplying the appropriate values from the health criteria database
such as the unit risk estimate (URE) or lifetime cancer risk (defined at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/gloss.htm#rfc) to get the noncancer tons. These toxicity-weighted
values act as a surrogate for risk and allow EPA to compare the toxicity-weighted values against
a 1990/1993 baseline of toxicity-weighted values to determine the percentage reduction in risk
on an annual basis
Complete documentation on development of the NEI for HAPs can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html. For more information and references on EMS-
HAP, go to the following web sites: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htmtfaspen and
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
(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
14
-------
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.
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
15
-------
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
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
16
-------
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.html#L10
New/Improved Data or Systems: The 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs are a significant
improvement over the baseline NTI because of the added facility-level detail (e.g., stack heights,
latitude/longitude locations), making it more useful for dispersion model input. Future
inventories (2002 and later years) are expected to improve significantly because of increased
interest in the NEI for HAPs by regulatory agencies, environmental interests, and industry, and
the greater potential for modeling and trend analysis. During the development of the 1999 NEI
for HAPs, all primary data submitters and reviewers were required to submit their data and
revisions to EPA in a standardized format using the Agency's Central Data Exchange (CDX).
For more information on CDX, please go the following web site:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/cdx.html
Beginning in 2006, the toxicity-weighted emission inventory data will also be used as a
measurement to predict exposure and risk to the public. This measure will utilize ambient
monitoring of air toxics as a surrogate for population exposure and compare these values with
health benchmarks to predict risks.
References:
The NTI and NEI data and documentation are available at the following sites:
Emissions Inventory Data: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/Emislnventory/
Available inventories: 1996 NTI, 1999 NEI for HAPs
17
-------
Contents:
Audience:
NEON:
Available inventories:
Contents:
Audience:
CHIEF:
Audience:
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
Information on the Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
EMS-HAP: http://epa.gov/scramQ01/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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Number of additional homes (new and existing) with radon reducing features
(PART measure)
18
-------
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.
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
19
-------
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
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Number of people taking all essential actions to reduce 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.
20
-------
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
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
21
-------
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
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.
22
-------
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),
Healthy People 2010 (http://www.healthypeople.gov/ last accessed 12/21/2005).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• 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.
23
-------
Data Limitations: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is exploring the development of a centralized data base.
References: N/A
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• 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.
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Estimated annual number of schools establishing Indoor Air Quality programs
based on EPA's Tools for Schools guidance (PART measure)
Performance Database:
24
-------
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.
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
25
-------
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Remaining US consumption of HCFCs, measured in tons of ozone depleting
potential (ODP) (PART measure)
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
26
-------
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
Protocol. See http://www.unmfs.org/ for more information about the Multilateral Fund. Quality
Assurance Plan, USEPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, July 2002
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 4
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• 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
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-CO2 emissions baselines. A baseline is the
"business-as-usual" case" without the impact of EPA's voluntary climate programs. Baseline
27
-------
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 (€62) 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.
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.
28
-------
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.
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 5
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air pollutant sources based on
the risk they pose to human health (PART Measure)
29
-------
• Percent of 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: EPA will track these program outputs annually using an internal
database.
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of the Clean Air Research Program's long-term goals, the program annually
develops a list of key research milestones and outputs in support of the Multi-Year Plan that are
scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is finalized by the start of the
fiscal year, and no changes are made after this point. The program then tracks quarterly the
progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-determined schedules and
milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from the original list that are
successfully completed on-time. Additionally, the Clean Air research program includes in this
metric completion of follow-up recommendations from external peer reviews.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual milestones be
clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year. Progress
toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research milestones and
outputs being measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program
reviews are used to measure research quality and impact.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Air Toxics Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/airtox.pdf (last accessed
January 3, 2007)
Particulate Matter Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/pm.pdf (last
accessed January 3, 2007)
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
30
-------
• The percentage of the population served by community water systems that receive
drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through
approaches including effective treatment and source water protection
• The percentage of the population in I ndian country served by community water systems
receiving drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards
• The percentage of community water systems that will provide drinking water that meets
all applicable health-based standards in person months
• Percent of community water systems that meet all applicable health-based drinking
water standards through approaches that include effective treatment and source water
protection (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
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. OGWDW is now working with the states to complete a
2006 data quality review and plan. An information strategic plan (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
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
OGWDW Information 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
32
-------
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 more accurately
quantifying data quality and should be better able to estimate the impact on national compliance
with health-based drinking water standards. OGWDW also is working with states to develop a
data quality objective for these data to better gauge progress toward data quality improvement.
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 (as of January 2007, 53 States, Tribes, and territories are using
SDWIS/STATE) will use SDWIS/STATE,3 a software information system jointly designed by
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
33
-------
states and EPA, to support states as they implement the drinking water program.
Third, EPA has modified SDWIS/FED to (1) simplify the database, (2) minimize data entry
options resulting in complex software, (3) enforce Agency data standards, and (4) ease the flow
of data to EPA through a secure data exchange environment incorporating modern technologies,
all of which will improve the accuracy of the data. In 2006, full use of SDWIS/FED for
receiving state reports will be implemented. Data will be stored in a data warehouse system that
is optimized for analysis, data retrieval, and data integration from other data sources. It will
improve the program's ability to more efficiently use information to support decision-making
and effectively manage the program.
Finally, EPA, in partnership with the states, is developing information modules on other drinking
water programs: the Source Water Protection Program, the Underground Injection Control
Program (UIC), and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. These modules will be
integrated with SDWIS to provide a more comprehensive data set with which to assess the
nation's drinking water supplies, a key component of the goal. Agreement will shortly 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
* These are internal documents maintained by EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Please call 202-564-3751 for
further information.
34
-------
Data Base (ECDB) - a database application, users guide, release notes, etc.) Available on
the Internet at
• Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet at
Web site addresses
• OGWDW Internet Site and contains
access to the information systems and various guidance, manuals, tools, and reports.
• Sites of particular interest are:
contains information for users to
better analyze the data, and
contains reporting guidance, system and
user documentation and reporting tools for the SDWIS/FED system.
FY 2007 Performance Measure:
• T he percentage of community water systems that have undergone a sanitary survey
within the past 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
(SOWA). 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
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 compiled 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
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
35
-------
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.
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
36
-------
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 2008 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 (DWNEVIS.)
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 DWNEVIS 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 DWNEVIS 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' "DWNDVIS 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.
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
37
-------
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of state-monitored shellfish-growing acres impacted by anthropogenic
sources 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 by
NOAA at 5-year intervals and periodic updates requested from the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation
Conference (most recent, 2003 2005 data released in 2004 20063).
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 FDA4.
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.
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.
38
-------
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 19955 and the states' baseline (the ISSC is considering the most appropriate baseline
year) and most current year data. State summary information can then be used to track trends
relevant to the performance measure, with the 1995 data as against 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:
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006 - 2011 EPA Strategic Plan. Washington,
D.C. Pre-publication Copy, September 29, 2006. http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm
2. Kracker, L.M., Comar P.O., Meaburn, G.M., and K Murugesan. 2005. SIMS: A Shellfish
Information Management System for Molluscan Shellfish. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS NCCOS 17. 53 pp.
3. Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference. Analysis of Classified Shellfish Waters 1985-
2005. Columbia, South Carolinia. September 2006. http://www.issc.org
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish 2005. Washington D.C.
http ://www. cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/nss3 -toe.html
5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1997. The 1995 National
Shellfish Register of Classified Growing Waters. Silver Spring, MD: Office of Ocean
Resources Conservation and Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.
398 pp.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Reduce the percentage of women of child-bearing age having mercury levels in blood
above the level of concern identified by the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES).
Performance Database: There is no publicly accessible database that contains this information.
Rather, the information is reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
every two years. The latest report is the Third National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals, which presents findings for the years 2001 and 2002, and was
published in 2005. In the report, CDC reported that 5.7% of the women of child-bearing age
have mercury blood levels above the level of concern.1
39
-------
Data Source: CDC's National Center for Health Statistics conducts the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in which chemicals or their metabolites are measured
in blood and urine samples from a random sample of participants. NHANES is a series of
surveys designed to collect data on the health and nutritional status of the U.S. population. CDC
reports the NHANES results in the National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals. The Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals was
released in 2003 and presented biomonitoring exposure data for 116 environmental chemicals for
the civilian, non-institutionalized U.S. population over the 2-year period 1999-2000. The Third
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals presents similar exposure data
for the U.S. population for 148 environmental chemicals over the period 2001-2002. The Third
Report also includes the data from the Second Report.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Biomonitoring measurements for the Report were
from samples from participants in NHANES. NHANES collects information about a wide range
of health-related behaviors, performs a physical examination and collects samples for laboratory
tests. Beginning in 1999, NHANES became a continuous survey, sampling the U.S. population
annually and releasing the data in 2-year cycles. The sampling plan follows a complex, stratified,
multistage, probability-cluster design to select a representative sample of the civilian,
noninstitutionalized population in the United States. Additional detailed information on the
design and conduct of the NHANES survey is available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.
The CDC National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) provides guidelines for the analysis of
NHANES data at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_general_guidelinesjune_04.pdf.
Other details about the methodology including statistical methods are reported in the Third
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals.
QA/QC Procedures: The CDC quality assurance and quality control procedures are not
specified in the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals.
However, the Data Sources and Data Analysis chapter in the report does delineate the
assumptions inherent in the analysis.
Data Quality Review: The data comes from the NHANES study, which CDC has designed to
have a high quality.
Data Limitations: NHANES is designed to provide estimates for the civilian, non-
institutionalized U.S. population. The current design does not permit examination of exposure
levels by locality, state, or region; seasons of the year; proximity to sources of exposure; or use
of particular products. For example, it is not possible to extract a subset of the data and examine
levels of blood lead that represent levels in a particular state's population.
Error Estimate: The Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals
provides 95% confidence intervals for all statistics. At the point of interest for this measure, the
95% confidence interval is roughly 1.2 ug/1.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
References
40
-------
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Third National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals." NCEH Pub. No. 05-0570. Atlanta, GA. July 2005.
Available at http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Number of waterborne disease outbreaks attributable to swimming in or other
recreational contact with, coastal and Great Lakes waters measured as a five-year
average.
Performance Database: Data on waterborne disease outbreaks (WBDOs) are collected by the
states and are submitted to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) under an agreement with the
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the organization that sponsors the collection of
the data. EPA/ORD collaborates with CDC in the analysis of the data. The data are published
every two years for the prior second and third years' occurrence of outbreaks as a Surveillance
Summary in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), e.g. data from 1997-
1998 were published in 2000. Outbreaks of gastroenteritis, dermatitis, and other diseases are
listed according to date of occurrence, state in which the outbreak occurred, etiological agent, the
number of cases that resulted from the outbreak, class of the outbreak data (index of data quality
for the reporting of the outbreak), and the type of source (e.g., lake, river, pool) involved.
Data Source: Since 1971, CDC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have
maintained a collaborative surveillance system for collecting and periodically reporting data that
relate to occurrences and causes of WBDOs. The surveillance system includes data about
outbreaks associated with drinking water and recreational water. State, territorial, and local
public health departments are primarily responsible for detecting and investigating WBDOs and
for voluntarily reporting them to CDC.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: State, territorial, and local public health agencies
report WBDOs to CDC on a standard form (CDC form 52.12). CDC annually requests reports
from state and territorial epidemiologists or from persons designated as WBDO surveillance
coordinators. As indicated above, the data are submitted to CDC by the states under an
agreement with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Original data forms and the
primary database itself are not available for external review because of concerns about the
integrity and confidentiality of the data, which include information such as the names of data
reporters, specific identities of water bodies, and identities of facilities and properties, both
public and private, at which the outbreaks occurred. Many, if not most outbreaks occur in
treated man-made water environments which are not reflective of outcomes of Clean Water Act
programs. Others occur in untreated natural waters in smaller waterbodies not impacted by EPA
programs or activities. Accordingly, cooperation of database managers is required to identify
specific outbreaks which should be counted under this measure as occurring in waters of the
United States.
41
-------
The unit of analysis for the WBDO surveillance system is an outbreak, not an individual case of
a waterborne disease, although this information is reported. Two criteria must be met for an
event to be defined as a water-associated disease outbreak. First, two or more people must have
experienced a similar illness after exposure to water. This criterion is waived for single cases of
laboratory-confirmed primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM). WBDOs associated with
cruise ships are not summarized in the CDC report.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are submitted to CDC on a standard reporting form in hard copy by
mail. Procedures for reporting outbreaks on the Internet for web-entry electronic submission are
currently under development. Upgrades to the reporting system to incorporate electronic data
reporting are anticipated to be implemented within the next three years1. Currently, CDC
annually obtains reports from state or territorial epidemiologists or persons designated as WBDO
surveillance coordinators. Numeric and text data are abstracted from the outbreak form and
supporting documents and entered into a database for analysis. Information on QA/QC
procedures employed by the individual states or other reporting entities is not included in the
CDC reporting.
Data Quality Review: The CDC and EPA/ORD report team review the outbreak reports to
ensure the information is complete, following up with the state or local government to obtain
additional information where needed. There are currently no external party reviews of this
information conducted prior to publication.
WBDOs reported to the surveillance system are classified according to the strength of the
evidence implicating water as the vehicle of transmission. The classification scheme (i.e.,
Classes I--IV) is based on the epidemiologic and water-quality data provided on the outbreak
report form. Epidemiologic data are weighted more than water-quality data. Although outbreaks
without water-quality data might be included in this summary, reports that lack epidemiologic
data were excluded. Single cases of PAM are not classified according to this scheme. Weighting
of epidemiologic data does not preclude the relative importance of both types of data. The
purpose of the outbreak reporting system is not only to implicate water as the vehicle for the
outbreak but also to understand the circumstances that led to the outbreak.
Data Limitations: There are two primary limitations to the CDC WBDO data with respect to
this performance measure. The first limitation relates to original data forms and the primary
database itself not being available for external review. The implication of this limitation is that
database managers or report authors will have to be consulted to identify which of the reported
outbreaks have, in fact, occurred in Waters of the United States. The second limitation is the fact
that very few outbreaks have been reported over the ten years of data that have been reviewed in
consideration of a baseline for this measure.2"6 The implication of this measure is that were a
small number of outbreaks to occur within a given year, it may still be within the range of
normal statistical variability and therefore not an effective performance measure.
One key limitation of the data collected as part of the WBDO surveillance system is that the
information pertains only to disease outbreaks rather than endemic illness. The epidemiologic
trends and water-quality concerns observed in outbreaks might not necessarily reflect or
correspond with trends associated with endemic waterborne illness. To address this problem,
42
-------
EPA and CDC are collaborating on the NEEAR Water Study to assess the magnitude of
waterborne illness associated with routine, non-outbreak-associated exposure to marine and
freshwater recreational areas.
Error Estimate: The relative quality of data and the error estimate associated with data of a
given quality are indicated by the classification of the outbreak report. A classification of I
indicates that adequate epidemiologic and water-quality data were reported. Specifically, a
classification of I indicates that adequate data were provided about exposed and unexposed
persons with a relative risk or odds ratio of =>2 or P value of =<0.05, which indicates statistical
significance. Higher classification numbers (II-IV) indicate relatively higher error estimates
based on factors such as completeness of data and sample size. For instance, outbreaks that
affect fewer persons are more likely to receive a classification of III rather than I because of the
relatively limited sample size available for analysis.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The manual reporting of WBDOs has been
practiced since the collaborative surveillance system for collecting and reporting data began in
1971. Plans are now in place to transform the outbreak reporting system over the next three
years to incorporate electronic data reporting. It is anticipated that the implementation of these
upgrades will increase the number of reported outbreaks substantially. An increased number of
reported WBDOs resulting from electronic reporting would require the baseline for the
performance measure to be reset to a baseline consistent with the new level of reporting in order
to yield meaningful trends in the occurrence of waterborne outbreaks in the future.
References
1. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. Personal Communication w/ Calderon
RL, author. Washington, DC, December 2005.
2. Yoder JS, Blackburn BG, Craun GF, Hill V, Levy DA, Calderon RL, et al. Surveillance
for waterborne-disease outbreaks—United States, 2001—2002. In: CDC Surveillance
Summaries, October 22, 2004. MMWR2004;53(SS-08): 1-22
3. Lee SH, Levy DA, Craun GF, Beach MJ, Calderon RL. Surveillance for waterborne-
disease outbreaks—United States, 1999-2000. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries,
November 22, 2002. MMWR2002;51(SS-8): 1-47.
4. Barwick RS, Levy DA, Craun GF, Beach MJ, Calderon RL. Surveillance for waterborne
disease outbreaks—United States, 1997-1998. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, May
26, 2000. MMWR2000;49 (No. SS-4):l-34.
5. Levy DA, Bens MS, Craun GF, Calderon RL, Herwaldt BL. Surveillance for waterborne-
disease outbreaks—United States, 1995—1996. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries,
December 11, 1998. MMWR 1998;47(No. SS-5):l-34.
6. Kramer MH, Herwaldt BL, Craun GF, Calderon RL, Juranek DD. Surveillance for
waterborne-disease outbreaks—United States, 1993—1994. In: CDC Surveillance
Summaries, April 12, 1996. MMWR 1996;45 (No. SS-l):l-33.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of days of the beach season that coastal and Great Lakes beaches monitored
43
-------
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.,
2007 calendar year data are used to report against FY 2008 commitments). As of 2005, States
and Territories monitor for pathogens at 4,025 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
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.
44
-------
Data Limitations: From calendar year 1997 to calendar year 2002, participation in the survey
and submission of data was voluntary. While the voluntary response rate has been high, it did
not capture 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, with information now
available for 4,025 of 6,099 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. All coastal and Great Lakes states
and territories now apply annually for implementation grants.
Error Estimate: Not all coastal and Great Lakes beaches are monitored. In 2005, States and
Territories report that they monitor at 4,025 of the 6,099 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. This
monitoring varies between States. For example, North Carolina monitors all its 247 beaches
whereas South Carolina monitors 23 of 299 beaches it identified. 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 (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. The amount, quality, and consistency of available data will improve to
the extent that state governments apply for and receive these grants. In FY 2008, EPA expects
all 35 coastal and Great Lakes states to again apply for grants to implement monitoring and
notification programs.
References:
U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's Beach Report: 2005 Swimming Season." EPA-823-F-
06-010. Washington, DC, June 2006. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2005/2005fs.pdf
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
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
45
-------
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
Leecaster. M.K. and S.B. Weisberg, Effect of Sampling Frequency on Shoreline
Microbiology Assessments, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(11), 2001.
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.
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• The Percentage of identified Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells closed or
permitted.
• Class 1,11, and III wells that maintain mechanical integrity without a failure that
releases contaminants to underground sources of drinking water.
• Percentage of prohibited Class IV and high-priority, identified, potentially
endangering Class V wells closed or permitted in ground-water based source water
areas.
Performance Database: The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program is authorized
under Part C Sections 1422 -1426 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA). Regulations for the
UIC program are in 40 CFR Parts 144 - 148. Basic program information is collected from states
and EPA's regional offices (regions) with direct implementation (DI) responsibilities through the
7520 Federal Reporting forms 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. In July 2005, EPA issued a measures
reporting assistance memorandum, "Information to Assist Regions and States to Report on
Underground Injection Control Program's National Water Program Guidance Performance
Activity Measures. " Starting in FY 2005, including annual updates thereafter, states report to
EPA on the results of their UIC performance measures. In the initial 2005 reporting, states or the
regions, if they have direct implementation of the program, report the following information: (1)
The number of Class I, II, III, and V violations and significant violations that have been
identified and addressed, (2) the number of Class I, II, III and V inspections, (3) The number of
Class I, II and III salt solution mining wells that maintained mechanical integrity, (4) the number
of Class V wells in Source Water Protection Areas (SWPAs) with surveys completed, and (5) the
number of high priority wells in ground water based SWPAs that are closed or permitted. This
information was reported to help determine the impact that the UIC program is having relative to
public health protection. It also helps assess the progress being made to protect underground
sources of drinking water (USDW).
In FY 2003, EPA maintained pilot state-level summary data for each of these reporting elements
in a spreadsheet format. In FY 2005, states and/or regions reported summary measures
information through a spreadsheet. In FY 2006, measures data was entered into a web-based
reporting form which mirrored the spreadsheet from the previous year. The UIC program will
46
-------
begin collecting program information in a UIC national database in 2007; this system will
electronically transfer information from state databases to EPA's national database using EPA's
Exchange Network. EPA is currently working with the regions and several states to complete
development of the system and to begin populating it.
Data Source: Until the UIC national database is deployed for use, states or DI programs will
report to EPA using the UIC Inventory/Performance Activity Measures System. This is a web-
base data entry system. Starting in 2007, states and DI programs will transition to the UIC
national data system for reporting of UIC data. - See section "New/Improved Data or Systems."
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For these measures, the states' reporting of progress is
based on EPA's 2005 guidance, "Information to Assist Regions and States to Report on
Underground Injection Control Program's National Water Program Guidance Performance
Activity Measures." States will only report state-level summary information, much of which is
contained in state databases. State reporting will be based on definitions and procedures found in
the guidance. EPA believes that the data will be reliable for use in making management
decisions.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures include validation of information using states' 7520
reporting forms. Additionally, a series of data checks are built into the web entry system. EPA's
regional offices also will work with individual states to verify information. Additional checks are
performed by EPA headquarters on randomly selected states.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's regional offices will conduct data quality reviews of state data
using the QA/QC procedures and work with states to resolve data issues. EPA headquarters will
communicate any additional concerns that may occur. The national data system includes
software to reject erroneous data. 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: Current reporting only provides summary-level information. There is no
standard protocol for EPA to verify and validate this summary data against well-level
information contained in state databases. Some of the information used for calculation of the
measures has not been collected historically reducing the availability of information, which may
cause the data to be incomplete and inconsistent across states.
Error Estimate: There is no basis for making an error estimate for these performance measures
given the data limitations of state-level summary reporting described above.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The UIC national data base is being developed though
consultation with regions and states. It will give EPA the ability to access the data directly from
states through the Exchange Network using the Central Data Exchange (CDX). The data system
will not only include the data for the measures but all of the data necessary for EPA to
effectively manage the national program.
References:
47
-------
Guidance, Regulations and Data Forms
• Information to Assist Regions and States to Report on Underground Injection Control
Program's National Water Program Guidance Performance Activity Measures (Reporting
Assistance Memo)—7/06/06
• Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Parts 144 through 148
• UIC Inventory/Performance Activity Measures System
• 7520 Federal Reporting Forms (OGWDW Homepage-UIC Program)
Form 7520-1 (summary of permit and non permit actions taken by state)
Form 7520-2A (summary of state compliance evaluation actions)
Form 7520- 2B (summary of significant non-compliance)
Form 7520-3(mechanical integrity test/remedial actions)
Form 7520-4 (Quarterly Exceptions List)
Web site addresses
• Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. P.L. 104-182. (Washington: 6 August
1996). Available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/sdwa.html
• For more detailed information on Underground Injection topics, US EPA Officeof
Ground Water and Drinking Water/UIC Program. Available on website:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic.html
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of waters assessed using statistically valid surveys
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. Once the data schema for biological and
habitat data are developed and deployed for the Exchange Network-based water quality
exchange (WQX) warehouse, these data will go directly to the WQX warehouse instead of
STORET.
Data Source: Data are collected, processed and analyzed through EPA-State collaboration to
assess and report on the condition of the nation's waters with documented confidence. Under this
partnership, samples are collected across the country 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 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
48
-------
resource. 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.
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
49
-------
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 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:
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 2008 Performance Measures:
50
-------
• Number of water body segments identified by States in 2002 as not attaining
standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained (PART measure
for the surface water protection program and the section 106 grant program)
• Number of waterbodies identified by States (in 2000 or subsequent years) as being
primarily NPS-impaired that are partially or fully restored (Part measure for the
section 319 grant program)
• Cost per water segment restored (section 106 grant program PART efficiency
measure)
• Section 319 funds (Smillion) expended per partially or fully restored waterbody
(section 319 grant program 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 these measures. 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, information stored in the National
Assessment Database (found at http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/index.html) and, for a small
number of waters tracked by these measures, stand-alone databases, yield the baseline data for
these measures. As discussed below under "New and Improved Data Systems," EPA is creating a
single database in 2007 that will track all the impaired waters in the baseline for these measures.
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 2002 impaired totals. Changes will be recorded in reports from States, scheduled every two
years through 2012, as removals of water body impairments and impaired water bodies.
The measure regarding the restoration of primarily NPS-impaired waters is being verified
through a laborious and careful process, in which EPA Headquarters staff review and help
prepare a detailed 2-page Fact Sheet that includes a description of the impairment and the causes
of that impairment; a description of the activities that were undertaken to remove the
impairment; the effect of those activities; and the partners involved in solving the problem. Each
of these stories is uploaded to the public web site ofwww.epa.gov/nps/success, and only after
uploaded is it counted towards the (250 waterbodies) goal.
Data Source: The primary data source for these measures is State 303(d) lists of their impaired
water bodies needing development of TMDLs and State Integrated Reports covering their
required submittals of monitoring information pursuant to section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.
These lists/reports are submitted each biennial reporting cycle. The baseline for this measure is
the 2002 list/2002 integrated reports. States prepare lists/reports using actual water quality
monitoring data, probability-based monitoring information, and other existing and readily
available information and knowledge the state has, in order to make comprehensive
51
-------
determinations addressing the total extent of the state's water body impairments. Once EPA
approves a state's 303(d) list, the information is entered into WATERS, as described above.
Throughout 2006, EPA worked with States that did not submit Integrated Reports in 2002 to
supplement their 2002 303(d) lists of impaired waters needing TMDLs with waters that were
also impaired in 2002 but were not on 303(d) lists because all needed TMDLs were complete.
Thus, EPA now has a more complete list of impaired waters for tracking under these measures.
The efficiency measure for the section 106 grant program is derived by dividing the actual
expenditures or President Budget requests for the section 106 grant program, plus State funding
matches for these grants (as reported to EPA by the States) by the cumulative number of water
body segments restored.
The efficiency measures for the section 319 grant program is based on the assumption that $100
million dollars annually of 319 dollars will be devoted annually, from 2000 through 2007, to
remediate impaired waters. These funds are assumed to be accompanied by a State/Federal
match required by Section 319 of 40% to EPA's 60% (although the match requirements apply to
the entire grant only, not to the remediation component alone). Thus the State match for $700
million dollars is $466 million, bringing the total funds available to a total of $1.166 billion. The
efficiency measure for this measure is that 250 waterbodies would be remediated for $1.166
billion, or an average of or approximately $4.66 million per waterbody.
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 CORMDC 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 many States in the STOrage
and RETrieval (STORET) database.
States exercise considerable discretion in using monitoring data and other available information
to make decisions about which waters meet their designated uses in accordance with state water
quality standards. EPA then aggregates State data to generate national performance measures.
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. EPA encourages States to effectively assess
their waters and make all necessary efforts to ensure the timely submittal of required § 303(d)
lists of impaired waters. EPA will work with States to facilitate State submission of accurate,
georeferenced, and comprehensive data. Also, EPA is heightening efforts to ensure expeditious
review of the 303(d) list submissions with national consistency.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of data provided by States pursuant to individual State 303(d)
lists (under CWA Section 303(d)) and/or Integrated 305(b)/303(d) Reports) is dependent on
individual state procedures. EPA regional staff interact with the States during the process of
approval of the lists and before the information is entered into the database to ensure the integrity
52
-------
of the data, consistent with the Office of Water Quality Management Plan (QMP). EPA requires
that each organization 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).
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) Program , the March 15, 2000 Government Accounting Office report Water Quality:
Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data6, the 2001 National Academy of
Sciences Report Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management and EPA 's
Draft Report on the Environment8
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 Integrated Report Guidance (released
August 3, 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG)9 provides comprehensive direction
to states on fulfilling reporting requirements of Clean Water Act sections 305 (b) and 303(d).
EPA also issued a 2008 Integrated Report clarification memo (released October 12, 2006;
5 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).
6 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)
7 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
8 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)
9USEPA, 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)
53
-------
available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.html )10which includes best
practices for timely development/submission of lists and expresses continued commitment to
support and populate the Assessment Database (ADB) (State-level system which EPA compiles
into the National Assessment Database available via WATERS) and/or compatible data
management systems.
Also, the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology - Toward a Compendium of Best
Practices11 (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).12 This guidance describes ten
elements that each state water quality monitoring program should contain and directs states to
develop monitoring strategies that propose time-frames for implementing all ten elements.
In addition, a recent evaluation by the EPA Office of the Inspector General13 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,
Refining the Agency strategic plan to better evaluate key programs and activities, and
Improving the measurement system by which watershed progress is assessed.
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
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.
10USEPA, Office of Water, Information Concerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections 303 (d), 305(b), and 314
Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions (2006). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.html (accessed 21 December 2006)
11 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)
12 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)
13 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.
54
-------
States, territories, and authorized tribes monitor to identify problems and typically lag times
between data collection and reporting can vary by state.
Also, as noted above under Methods, Assumptions and Suitability, States exercise considerable
discretion in using monitoring data and other available information to make decisions about
which waters meet their designated uses in accordance with state water quality standards. EPA
then aggregates these various State decisions to generate national performance measures.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data Systems: The Office of Water has been working with states to improve
the guidance under which 303(d) lists are prepared. EPA issued new listing guidance 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).
EPA released Information Concerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314
Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions in October 2006 18 months in advance of the April
2008 Integrated Report due date. The primary goal of the 2008 memo is to help achieve 100
percent on-time submittals of the Integrated Reports (all 56 states and territories by April 1,
2008). Timely submittal and EPA review of Integrated Reports is important to demonstrate state
and EPA success in accomplishing Strategic Plan goals for restoring and maintaining water
quality.
EPA is also combining the National TMDL Tracking System and the National Assessment
Database into one integrated system (the Assessment, TMDL Tracking, and ImplementatioN
System) that tracks the status of all assessed waters and waterbody impairments, including
impaired waterbodies. EPA is also in the process of releasing the Water Quality Exchange
(WQX) which provides data warehousing capability to any organization that generates data of
documented quality and would like to contribute that data to the national WQX data warehouse
so that their data may be used in combination with other sources of data to track improvements
in individual watersheds. Currently data providers must transmit data and required
documentation through their own Central Data Exchange (CDX) node. During 2007, EPA will
make a web data entry tool available for users that have not invested in the CDX node.
References:
USEPA, Office of Water. 2006. Information Concerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections
303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.html,
55
-------
USEPA, Office of Water. 2005. Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore
and Protect Our Waters. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershedjiandbook/.
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.
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 2008 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)
56
-------
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://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/national_rept.control)
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,
"Number of water body segments identified by States in 2002 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, consistent with theWater
Quality Management Plan (QMP). 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).
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 and 2006, 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, several training sessions were
scheduled, and a new Assessment, TMDL Tracking, and Implementation System workgroup is
currently strategizing to improve the database (see "Data Limitations," below).
In addition, a recent EPA Office of the Inspector General report included comments on the
TMDL Program (Sustained Commitment Needed to Further Advance the Watershed Approach).
The report 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
57
-------
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. 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.
To meet the increasing need for readily accessible CWA information, EPA established an
Assessment, TMDL Tracking, and Implementation System workgroup. This workgroup is
fashioning an integrated system capable of documenting and managing the connections between
state assessment and listing decisions reported under sections 305(b) and 303(d) (i.e., integrated
reporting) and completed TMDL information. This system will allow seamless access to all
information about assessment decisions and restoration actions across reporting cycles and over
time until water quality standards are attained. The integrated system will have streamlined data
entry requirements and an understandable interface for both EPA and the public. The system will
also be able to support automated transactions with State assessment tracking systems through
the EPA Central Data Exchange.
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of major NPDES permittees in Significant Noncompliance at any
time during the fiscal year (PART measure)
• Percentage of all major publicly-owned treatment works (POT Ws) that comply
with their permitted wastewater discharge standards (PART measure)
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
58
-------
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
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
59
-------
system to replace PCS, utilizing modern data entry, storage, and analytical approaches. The
replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES (Integrated Compliance Information System - NPDES),
a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data system, began in June 2006 when eleven states
began using the system; seven other states will be migrated to the new system in August. 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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of States and Territories 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)
• Percentage of submissions of new or revised water quality standards from States
and Territories that are approved by EPA (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 provides the baseline and performance data for these
measures.
Data Source: The underlying data sources for this measure are submissions from states and
territories 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 and territories 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 that the standards were duly adopted pursuant to state or territorial 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
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:
60
-------
• Percentage of State and Territorial 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 at least five months 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 with weights corresponding to
the number of actual provisions involved. When different decisions are reached on different
parts or provisions 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 provisions
approved, divided by the total number of provisions in the original submission. For example, if
a submission contains 10 provisions and EPA approves 8 and disapproves 2, then the metric
would count this as 0.8 submissions. 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 States and Territories 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 or territory 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
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 five months 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 2008 any qualifying submissions from May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2008,
that were approved by September 30, 2008, would enable the jurisdiction to be counted. Note
61
-------
the overlap from one reporting year to the next: a state that last made such a submittal, in, say,
February 2005, would be counted in FY 2005, FY 2006, and FY 2007 but not in FY 2008.
QA/QC Procedures: States and territories 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/wqslibrary/, or contacting the appropriate Regional
Office or state/territorial 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:
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/.
62
-------
FY 2008 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 NFS Management
Programs and annual Section 319 funded work programs, which include watershed-based BMP
implementation projects. GRTS includes information about Best Management Practices (BMPs)
implemented under 319-funded watershed projects, and the NPS load reductions achieved as a
result of implementation. EPA uses GRTS to compile and report information about state section
319 program projects, including load reductions for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to
waterbodies.
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 would
otherwise be available. Besides load reduction information, GRTS, in conjunction with
WATERS (see below) provides detailed georeferencing (i.e., National Hydrography Dataset - or
"NHD"~ reach addresses) for 319-funded projects, project cost information, and a host of other
elements.
GRTS is also part of the Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results System
(WATERS), which is used to provide water program information and display it spatially using a
geographic information system integrated with several existing databases. These databases
include 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: States enter load reduction data for individual 319-funded projects into GRTS.
Various watershed models are used in the States to estimate the load reductions resulting from
implementation of BMPs. Two models used by many 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 staff directly into the appropriate GRTS data fields.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: States employ two main methods to make pollutant
load reduction estimates for the purpose of entering information into GRTS: 1) watershed
models to estimate load reductions after watershed project BMPs are implemented, and 2) direct
sampling over time of pollutants using targeted site selection. Even direct sampling methods,
however, usually involve some type of modeling to separate BMP effects from other variables
when determining load reductions.
63
-------
EPA aggregates the load reduction data entered into GRTS to generate the national load
reduction number for each pollutant. With each successive time period - each of which includes
load reduction estimates from projects funded under more than one fiscal year grant (since BMPs
are still "working" for some time after initial installation) — the total from the previous period is
subtracted from the total of the current time period to get the incremental total. For example, our
first report on national load reduction numbers in the PART included projects funded from FY
2002 and most of FY 2003 (FY 2002 was the first grant year for which load reduction
information was mandated). For the next report in PART, we totaled load reductions for projects
from FY 2002 through 2004, with a smattering of projects for FY 2005 for which information
was available in GRTS. The total from the first time around was subtracted from this latter total
to give us the increment. This increment is what we reported in OMB's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) in November 2005.
This method of determining the increment has been necessary because of the particular structure
and previous software used for GRTS, which houses projects by grant year. A project funded in
a single grant year is usually implemented over several years. Within a single project form, the
load reduction number (or numbers if more than one watershed is being addressed by the project)
is updated at least annually, but there is no requirement to keep the "original" load reduction
number in the system. Therefore, we did not always have a record of how load reductions have
increased over time for a given project; hence, we use the method described above to estimate
the national load reduction increment from one time period to the next.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of load reduction estimates generated by states is dependent on
individual state procedures, such as state Quality Management Plans (QMPs), which are
periodically reviewed and approved by EPA Regions.
EPA provides user support and training to states in the use of the STEPL and Region 5 models.
EPA emphasizes that Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) should be developed (in
accordance with EPA approved State QMPs) for watershed projects, especially where water
quality models are being used or where monitoring is being conducted. EPA also stresses that
site-specific parameters be used whenever possible for input to water quality models, as opposed
to default input values provided by some modeling tools.
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.
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
our use of "ad-hoc" and standard reports available in the GRTS reporting system.
64
-------
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 identify the activities and results of projects 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. We sponsor 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.
The CWA Sections 319(h)(l 1) and 319(m)(l) require States to report their Nonpoint Source
Management Program (NPSMP) milestones, nonpoint source pollutant load reductions, and
water quality improvements. These sections provide the EPA Office of Water (OW) authority to
require water quality monitoring and/or modeling, and to require reporting by states to
demonstrate their success in reducing nonpoint source pollutant loads and improving water
quality. OW has issued several guidance documents designed to improve state NPSMPs,
watershed-based projects, and consistency in state progress reporting, including their use of
GRTS. In September 2001, EPA issued "Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting
Requirements for Section 319 Grants." This memorandum outlines the process for reporting in
GRTS load reductions for nutrients and sediment (for applicable Section 319(h) funded projects).
Our current "National Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines" (October, 2003)
includes sections on all nonpoint source grant reporting requirements, including GRTS reporting.
Furthermore, EPA, in consultation with the States, has established the nonpoint source program
activity measures (PAMs) - including nonpoint load reductions — which are now part of EPA's
Strategic Plan and the PART. We have 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 our reviews of data input to GRTS by the States.
Data Limitations: State NPSMP work to model (and monitor) watersheds is often not
integrated or coordinated with state water quality monitoring and assessment strategies, and
therefore use of the data may be rather limited. Load reduction data are 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 to decision-making for implementing
and/or revising their NFS Management Programs.
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.
65
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: GRTS has recently been converted to an Oracle database.
Oracle is the standard database used by Federal agencies. Conversion to Oracle will allow
GRTS to seamlessly connect with WATERS, as well as facilitate potential linkages to a variety
of other databases, models, and watershed planning tools. The Oracle-based GRTS will greatly
improve reporting capabilities for all end users, and make it easier to quickly answer questions
for stakeholders. Questions which will be easier to answer include, "Where are watershed
projects being developed and implemented? Are they concurrent 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. We can customize screens to reflect various
programmatic needs of Regional offices and States, such as to view only the mandated elements,
or a mix of mandated elements and other Regionally-required data fields.
Training on STEPL and the Region 5 model are ongoing in hopes of minimizing operational
mistakes for State staff utilizing one or both of these models to estimate section 319 project load
reductions.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of high priority EPA and State NPDES permits that are reissued as
scheduled (PART Measure)
• Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits reissued as scheduled (PART
Measure)
Performance Database:
U.S. EPA. Permit Compliance System (PCS), [database]. Washington, DC [Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance]
U.S. EPA Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES). [database].
Washington, DC [Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance]
Electronic Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (E-PIFT) [database]. Washington, DC
[Office of Water]
Priority Permits Data Base, [web-based database]. Washington, DC [Office of
Water]
EPA has carried out detailed permit renewal backlog tracking with PCS data since November
1998. The Permit Compliance System (PCS) and the Integrated Compliance Information System
(ICIS-NPDES) are used to determine which individual permits are current through date fields for
permit issuance and expiration. To supplement the individual permit data from PCS, EPA uses
the Electronic Permit Issuance Forecasting Tool (E-PIFT) to track the current or expired status of
facilities covered under non-storm water general permits. E-PIFT has been used to track non-
storm water general permit facilities since January 2001.
66
-------
In March 2004 a new priority permit issuance strategy was initiated under the Permitting for
Environmental Results (PER) program. The priority permits issuance strategy focuses
permitting activities on environmentally and administratively 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/ICIS-NPDES to track permit issuance status of these permits.
Data Source: EPA=s Regional offices and NPDES authorized states enter data into PCS and/or
ICIS-NPDES and EPA=s Regional offices are responsible for entering data to the E-PIFT.
EPA's Regional offices and States also enter permit identification information into the Priority
Permits database.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Annually, Office of Wastewater Management
(OWM) provides State and Regional authorities with a list of candidate priority permits, defined
as permits that have been expired for two years or more. States and Regions then use several
programmatic and environmental criteria to select which of those candidate permits should be
prioritized for issuance. They then commit to issue these permits over the next two fiscal years,
with the goal of achieving a 95% issuance rate. Regions enter their commitments into the
Priority Permits Data Base. Results are confirmed using PCS/ICIS-NPDES reports.
QA/QC Procedures: The PCS and ICIS-NPDES databases are managed by the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA); E-PIFT and Priority Permits Database are
web-based systems that 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/ICIS-NPDES 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/ICIS-NPDES data, EPA
and States can make corrections in PCS/ICIS-NPDES. EPA will continue to focus on improving
the lat/long data in PCS/ICIS-NPDES, 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.
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, permit event data such as
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.
This has resulted in improved tracking of data, particularly industrial permits.
67
-------
The replacement of PCS with ICIS-NPDES, a modernized and user-friendly NPDES data
system, began in June 2006 and nineteen states and several territories have successfully migrated
to the new system. Use of ICIS-NPDES should greatly increase state participation and data
quality. Batch states (those states with their own data systems) will not be migrated to ICIS-
NPDES until appropriate mechanisms are in place to transfer the data.
Data Limitations: Priority Permits data are verified and reliable. We are aware of data gaps in
PCS in general, particularly for minor facilities, and of discrepancies between state databases and
PCS; however, EPA=s data clean-up over the past five years has significantly improved data
quality. E-PIFT has enabled EPA to report on inventories and status of non-storm water
facilities covered by NPDES general permits, but the data are not as comprehensive as those
tracked in PCS. In addition, to date, there has been no national-level data system to track permit
issuance and expiration status of facilities covered by stormwater general permits. In 2007,
OWM is planning to improve E-PIFT to enable tracking of stormwater general permits and
facilities covered under them.
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 has been providing contractor assistance
to improve the data quality in PCS and will continue to do so. The new modernized ICIS-
NPDES was rolled out in June 2006, with nineteen states and several territories now using the
system. ICIS -NPDES will be easier to use and will improve the quality of data needed to
manage the NPDES program.
References:
Information for PCS and ICIS-NPDES is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/modernization/index.html
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Loading (pounds) of pollutants removed per program dollar expended (PART
efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Data for this measure are derived using different methods for
industries subject to effluent guidelines, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), municipal
storm water and construction storm water (industrial storm water is not included nor are
reductions from water quality based effluent limits). The values derived from these 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 are 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
68
-------
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 industry sectors subject to effluent guidelines, estimated loading reductions
are taken from reductions estimated in the Technical Development Document (TDD) when the
effluent guideline is developed. The common components for such analyses include wastewater
sampling, data collection from the regulated industry, and some amount of estimation or
modeling. 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. States and EPA=s Regional offices enter data into PCS and ICIS.
For Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), trend data is taken from a detailed analysis
for BOD and TSS loadings from POTWs in AProgress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the
National Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatments, USEPA, June 2000, EPA-832-R-00-
008. 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) to provide projections for 2016. EPA has also prepared a
A2004 Update to Progress in Water Quality @ that uses data from the 2004 CWNS to provide
flow and loading estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2025. The 2004 CWNS is
currently at OMB for clearance.
For Municipal Stormwater, estimates 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 1999.14
Estimates of the sediment load present in Construction Stormwater is derived 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 erodability 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."
Combined Sewer Overflow (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.
14 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
69
-------
Data for the PART denominator, i.e. the total number of dollars devoted to the EPA Surface
Water Program (SWP), are assembled and updated as new data becomes available. EPA Surface
Water Program funds and CWA Section 106 budget are initially based on the President's Budget
until a final budget is adopted; it is then pulled from EPA's Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS). State 'match' dollars are reported to EPA by States; where updated data is not
available, the last year of confirmed data is carried forward.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: EPA uses the spreadsheet 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.
Data Quality Reviews: The methodology for this measure was submitted to OMB for review
during the PART process.
Data Limitations: Loadings data must be modeled rather than measured as 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 measure actual loadings reductions for all of the approximately 550,000
facilities that fall under the NPDES program. As a result, loadings estimates are based upon
models.
When the ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement is issued, the quality and quantity of Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) data is expected to improve. This will enable development of
improved methods for estimating and validating loading reductions.
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 continues to evaluate and explore improved 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.
70
-------
Modeling databases and software being used by the Office of Water are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/water/soft.html
SWP PART Efficiency Measure Spreadsheet [Excel Spreadsheet]. Washington, D.C. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management].
Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, EPA 8330R-04-001, August 2004;
available at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy_reort2004.cfm
Progress in Water Quality: An Evalulation of the National Investment in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment, USEPA, June 2000, EPA-832-R-00-008; available at: http://www.epa.gov/OW-
OWM.html/wquality/benefits.htm
Report to Congress: National Pretreatment Program, EPA 1991; available at:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0244.pdf
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF
• CWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level ($billions/yr)
Performance Database: Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management
System (NEVIS.)
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 EVIS Analysis" provides detailed data
71
-------
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.
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/cwfinance/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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Number of water bodies restored or improved per million dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided. (PART measure)
• Number of waterbodies protected per million dollars of CWSRF assistance
provided. (PART measure)
Performance Databases: Clean Water State Revolving Fund Benefits Reporting (CBR)
Database
CBR contains state-by-state data on the environmental benefits achieved by each loan made by
the 51 state CWSRFs. CBR is a new database and therefore does not contain data on all CWSRF
72
-------
loans since the inception of the program. CBR contains complete data on all loans made from
capitalization grants received after January 1, 2005. Some states have chosen to report the
environmental benefits of loans made from earlier capitalization grants. Data is entered into
CBR by states on a rolling basis; however, states must enter all loans for a given fiscal year by
the end of the state fiscal year. As of July 2006, the environmental benefits of $9.5 billion in
CWSRF assistance had been reported in the CBR.
CBR contains general information about each loan, including borrower, loan execution date, loan
amount, repayment period and interest rate. Data on the environmental benefits of each loan
include population served, wastewater volume, needs categories addressed, discharge
information (i.e. ocean, surface water, groundwater, etc), permit type/number (if applicable),
affected waterbody name and ID number, and affected waterbody status (impaired or meeting
standards). CBR also collects information on whether each loan helps a system to achieve or
maintain compliance, and whether it contributes to water quality improvement or maintenance.
The designated uses of the waterbody are identified, as well as whether the loan contributes to
protection or restoration of each designated use.
Data Sources: State regulatory agency personnel report and enter data into the CBR database
on a rolling basis, based on state fiscal year.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into CBR directly represent the units of
performance for the performance measure. Data collected in the CBR database is suitable for
calculating these performance and efficiency measures.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA regional offices are responsible for assuring state personnel enter all
data by the end of the state fiscal year. States receive data entry guidance from EPA
headquarters in the form of data definitions, available online at:
http://12.170.50.10/cwbenefits/login.aspx by clicking on the "help" menu in the top right corner
of the screen.
Data Quality Review: Quarterly checks of the data are performed by EPA's contractor to
ensure that states are entering data in a manner consistent with data definitions. Headquarters
addresses significant data variability issues directly with states.
Data Limitations: Erroneous data can be introduced into the CBR 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 are minimized as a result of EPA headquarters' clarification of
definitions. Data is entered into the system on a rolling basis due to variations in state fiscal
years. This new database has been in operation for approximately one year. As a result,
comprehensive data is not available for all states for years prior to 2005.
Error Estimate: As this is a new database, an error estimate is not available at this time.
New & Improved Data or Systems: This system has been operative since 2005. Data fields
are changed or added as needed.
73
-------
References:
Definitions of data requested for each data field in the CBR database is available at:
http://12.170.50.10/cwbenefits/login.aspx by clicking on the "help" menu in the top right corner
of the screen.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water supply and
wastewater disposal. [PART annual measure]
• Number of homes that received improved service per $1,000,000 of State and
Federal funding. [PART efficiency measure]
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). This database has been modified to
include rural Alaska communities and Alaska Native Villages (ANVs).
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).
Methods, Assumptions and Sustainability: The SDS is an inventory of sanitation deficiencies
for Indian and rural Alaska homes, ANVs and communities. It is updated annually. The
identification of sanitation deficiencies can be made several ways, the most common of which
follow:
• Consultation with Tribal members, community members and other Agencies
• Field visits by engineers, sanitarians, Community Health Representatives (CHRs)
nurses, State of Alaska IHS or tribal heath staff
• PWSS Sanitary Surveys
• 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. The PDS supports the annual calculation of the program efficiency measure.
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 undergo a series of
quality control reviews at various levels within the IHS and the State of Alaska.
74
-------
Data Quality Reviews: The SDS data undergo a series of highly organized reviews by
experienced tribal, IHS field, IHS district, State of Alaska and IHS area personnel. The data
quality review consists of performing a number of established data queries and reports, which
identify errors and/or inconsistencies. In addition, the top SDS projects and corresponding
community deficiency profiles for each area are reviewed against their budgets. Detailed cost
estimates are required for the review.
Data Limitations: The data are limited by the accuracy of reported data in STARS.
Error Estimate: The 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
and 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 2007 the STARS application will be modified so that STARS' administrators
can allow specific users to access their relevant portions of the STARS database.
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic ecosystem
health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale)
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. The final data are then migrated to
75
-------
the STORET data warehouse for integration with other water quality data with metadata
documenting its quality.
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 2000-2002.
These data are collected through a joint EPA-State cooperative agreement and the States follow a
rigid sampling and collection protocol following intensive training by EPA personnel.
Laboratory processing is completed at either a state laboratory or through a national EPA
contract. Data collection follows a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (either the National
Coastal QAPP or a variant of it) and QA testing and auditing by EPA.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The surveys are conducted using a probabilistic
survey design which allows extrapolation of results to the target population (in this case - all
estuarine resources of the specific state.) The collection design maximizes the spatial spread
between sites, located by specific latitude-longitude combinations. The survey utilizes an
indexed sampling period (generally late summer) to increase the probability of encountering
water quality, sediment quality and biotic condition problems, if they exist. Based on the QAPP
and field collection manual, a site in a specific state is located by sampling vessel via Global
Positioning System (GPS) and water quality is measured on board at multiple depths. Water
samples are taken for chemistry; sediment samples are taken for chemistry, toxicity testing and
benthic community assessment; and fish trawls are conducted to collect community fish data and
provide selected fish (target species) for analysis of whole body and/or fillet contaminant
concentrations. Samples are stored in accordance with field manual instructions and shipped to
the processing laboratory. Laboratories follow QA plans and complete analyses and provide
electronic information to the state or EPA. EPA and the state exchange data to ensure that each
has a complete set. EPA analyzes the data to assess regional conditions, whereas the states
analyze the data to assess conditions of state-specific waters. Results of analyses on a national
and regional basis are reported as chapters in the National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR)
series. The overall regional condition index is the simple mean of the five indicators' scores
used in the Coastal Condition Report (in the NCCR2 a recalculation method was provided for
direct comparison of the successive reports). An improvement for one of the indicators by a full
category unit over the eight year period will be necessary for the regional estimate to meet the
performance measurement goal (+0.2 over an eight year period).
Assumptions: (1) The underlying target population (estuarine resources of the United
States) has been correctly identified; (2) GPS is successful; (3) QAPP and field collection
76
-------
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
next NCCR (NCCRIII) representing trends between 1990-2002.
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
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
77
-------
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.
Beginning in 2005, ORD began assisting OW, as requested, with expert advice, but discontinued
its financial support of the program.
Error Estimate: The estimate of condition (upon which the performance measure is
determined) has an annual uncertainty rate of about 2-3% for national condition, about 5-7% for
individual regional indicators (composite of all five states data into a regional estimate), and
about 9-10% for individual state indicators. These condition estimates are determined from the
survey data using cumulative distribution functions and the uncertainty estimates are calculated
using the Horvitz-Thompson estimator.
New/Improved Data or Systems:
(1) Changes have occurred in the data underlying the performance measure based on
scientific review and development. A change in some reporting indicators has occurred
in order to more accurately represent the intended ecological process or function. For
example, a new eutrophication index was determined for the 2000 data. In order to
compare this new index to the 1991-1994 data, the earlier data results must be
recomputed using the new technique. This recalculation is possible because the
underlying data collection procedures have not changed.
(2) New national contract laboratories have been added every year based on competition.
QA requirements are met by the new facilities and rigorous testing at these facilities is
completed before sample analysis is initiated. QA adherence and cross-laboratory sample
analysis has minimized data variability resulting from new laboratories entering the
program.
(3) The only reason for the discontinuation of the National performance goal would be the
elimination of the surveys after 2004 or any other year thereafter.
78
-------
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.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites achieving environmentally
acceptable conditions (as reflected in each site's Site Management Plan)
Performance Database: Data for this measure are entered into EPA's Annual Commitment
System (ACS) database by those EPA Regional offices (Regions) responsible for the
management and oversight of dredged material ocean dumping sites. This performance measure,
which is a target in the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, will be tracked on an annual basis as a
management tool for the ocean dumping program. The baseline year for the measure is 2005.
Data Source: EPA's Regional offices are responsible for data collection and management.
Under section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), EPA
Regions may designate ocean sites for the disposal of dredged material. The Act requires that
each site have a Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP), which includes, but is not
limited to, a baseline assessment of the conditions at the site, a program for monitoring the site,
and management practices at the site to protect the aquatic environment. Each SMMP is unique
to the dump site and is developed in conjunction with all relevant stakeholders. The SMMP
generally defines monitoring requirements, the conditions under which a site is deemed to be
environmentally acceptable, and triggers for corrective action. Based on the requirements of
each SMMP, the responsible Regions may conduct monitoring surveys of the dump sites to
determine benthic impacts, spatial distribution of dredged material, characterize physical changes
to the seafloor resulting from disposal, pH, turbidity, and other water quality indicators.
79
-------
Utilizing sampling results (as necessary), EPA Regions determine if a site is achieving
environmentally acceptable conditions.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: As each SMMP defines the required monitoring and
environmentally acceptable conditions for an ocean dumping site, any survey/sampling
methodologies and assumptions will be site-specific. However, if a Region utilizes EPA's
Ocean Survey Vessel (OSV) Bold, established procedures for use of the equipment and handling
samples on the OSV Bold must be followed. In addition, for each survey the Region is required
to submit to Headquarters a survey plan that presents types of sampling techniques, including
equipment used, and how data are recorded. These data are highly suitable for tracking the
performance of this measure, as they are collected for the specific purpose of determining the
environmental conditions of the dredged material ocean dump sites. The periodicity of
monitoring is determined by the SMMP, and is suitable for tracking this measure.
QA/QC Procedures: Regions must develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), as
prescribed by their regional quality assurance procedures, when collecting data at an ocean
dumping site. These QAPPs are also submitted to Headquarters when a Region utilizes the OSV
Bold for a sampling survey. The QAPP outlines the procedures for collection methods, use of
analytical equipment, analytical methods, quality control, and documentation and records.
Data Quality Reviews: Regions must conduct data quality reviews as determined by their
quality assurance procedures and included in their QAPPs.
Data Limitations: It is still early to determine the full extent of data limitations.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: This is a new program activity measure for FY 2007;
therefore, any improvements to the collection and/or evaluation of data to support the measure
will be determined following the initial tracking performance.
References: The Annual Commitment System is an internal EPA database that is a component
of the Agency's Budget Automation System (BAS). EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection
Division has prepared a template for the Regions to use when preparing survey plans. QAPPs
for those Regions responsible for ocean dumping sites may be found at the following internet
sites:
EPA Region 1 -http://www.epa.gov/ne/lab/qa/pdfs/QAPPProgram.pdf
EPA Region 2 - http://www.epa.gov/region2/qa/documents.htm#qag
EPA Region 3 - http://www.epa.gov/region3/esc/QA/docs_qapp.htm
EPA Region 4 - http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/oqa/r4qmp.html
EPA Region 6 - http://www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6pd/qa/qatools.htm
80
-------
EPA Region 9 - http://www.epa.gov/region9/qa/pdfs/qaprp_guidance3.pdf
EPA Region 10 - http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5-fmal.pdf
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• 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)
• Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal #1) delivered on
time (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal #2) delivered on
time (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long-term goal #3) delivered on
time (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database)
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of a program's long-term goals, each program annually develops a list of key
research outputs scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is finalized by
the start of the fiscal year, and no changes are made after this point. The program then tracks
quarterly the progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-determined schedules
and milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from the original list that are
successfully completed on-time.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual milestones and
outputs be clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year.
Progress toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research milestones and
outputs being measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program
reviews are used to measure research quality and impact
Error Estimate: N/A
81
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Drinking Water Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/dw.pdf (last accessed
January 3, 2007).
Water Quality Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/wq.pdf (last accessed
January 3, 2007).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Peer-reviewed publications over FT E (Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Data are derived from a self-produced list of program publications and financial
records for FTE employees.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The universe of peer-reviewed publications includes 1)
journal articles, 2) books and book chapters, and 3) EPA reports, where at least one EPA author
is listed or where the publication is the result of an EPA grant. If a publication includes more
than one EPA author, that publication is counted only once. Materials submitted for publication
but not yet published are not included. FTE are actual program full time equivalents.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: All publications included in the data are peer reviewed according to
EPA's Peer Review Handbook (3rd Edition).
Data Limitations: FTE data do not include extramurally-funded contributors. Additionally,
data do not capture the quality or impact of the research publications. However, long-term
performance measures and independent program reviews are used to measure research quality
and impact.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: EPA's Peer Review Handbook, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/Peer%20Review%20HandbookMay06.pdf (last accessed on
January 3, 2007)
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
82
-------
• Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste [PA R T perfor mance]
• Millions of tons municipal solid waste diverted [PART performance]
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.
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.
83
-------
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: Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2003 Facts and Figures, EPA, April
2005 (EPA530-F-05-003), http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percent of RCRA hazardous waste management facilities with permits or other
approved controls in place [PART performance]
• Update controls for preventing releases at facilities that are due for permit
renewals [PART performance]
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: Data are entered by the states. Supporting documentation and reference materials
are maintained in Regional and state files. EPA's Regional offices and authorized states enter
data on a rolling basis.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act
Information System (RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
RCRAInfo contains information on entities (generically referred to as "handlers") engaged in
hazardous waste generation and management activities regulated under the portion of RCRA that
provides for regulation of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo has several different modules, including
status of RCRA facilities in the RCRA permitting universe.
QA/QC Procedures: States and EPA's Regional offices generate the data and manage data
quality related to timeliness and accuracy. Within RCRAInfo, the application software contains
structural controls that promote the correct entry of the high-priority national components.
RCRAInfo documentation, which is available to all users on-line at
http://www.epa.gov/rcrainfo/, provides guidance to facilitate the generation and interpretation of
data. Training on use of RCRAInfo is provided on a regular basis, usually annually, depending
on the nature of system changes and user needs. Even with the increasing 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. Accomplishment of goal # 2
(listed above) is based on the permit expiration date code. This is a new code for the new goal
84
-------
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
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/). The 1995
GAO report Hazardous Waste: Benefits of EPA's Information System Are Limited (AEVID-95-
85
-------
167, August 22, 1995, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf).
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.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• No more than 10,000 confirmed releases per year
• Increase the rate of significant operational compliance by 1% over the previous year's
rate (target)
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.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's regional offices verify and then forward the data in an Excel
spreadsheet to OUST. OUST staff examine the data and resolve any discrepancies with the
regional offices. The data are displayed in an Excel spreadsheet on a region-by-region basis,
which is a way regional staff can check their data.
Data Quality Review: None.
Data Limitations: Percentages reported are sometimes based on estimates and extrapolations
from sample data. Data quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state records.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
References: FY 2006 Mid-Year Activity Report, June 20, 2006 (updated semiannually);
FY 2006 End-of-Year Activity Report, from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground
Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10, dated November 14,
2006, http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca_06_34.pdf
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of Construction and Demolition debris that is reused or recycled
Performance Database: EPA does not maintain a database for this information.
86
-------
Data Sources: The baseline numbers for construction and demolition (C&D) debris generation
and recycling in the United States rely on data from two recent draft EPA studies characterizing
generation and management of building-related and road-related C&D debris: (1)
"Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States,"
and (2) "Characterization of Road and Bridge-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the
United States." The building-related report is an update of EPA's 1998 report by the same name.
It includes additional sampling data published after 1998 to strengthen the source category
database. The purpose of the reports is to characterize the various components of the C&D
waste stream and estimate the total amount of debris generated and recycled nationally. It is
important to note that the data and information provided in these reports are preliminary and are
currently undergoing review.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Building-Related C&D: The methodology used to
estimate the amount of building-related C&D debris generated nationally combines national
Census Bureau data on construction industry activities (e.g., construction permits and the value
of new private and public residential construction from the Department of Commerce Current
Construction Reports) with point source waste assessment data (i.e., waste sampling and
weighing at a variety of construction and demolition sites). Recycling estimates are based on
data from national industry surveys and local communities.
Road- and Bridge-Related C&D: A model is used to estimate the amount of road-related C&D
generation. The model is a series of steps applied to road statistics published by the Federal
Highway Administration to determine, in 12-foot lane widths, the number of lane-miles in the
U.S. This area measurement is then combined with assumptions on pavement type, maintenance
time frames, reconstruction and resurfacing depths, and weight factors to estimate road C&D
generation on a tons per year basis. Assumptions pertaining to asphalt and cement concrete
debris generation include: "Asphalt roads are reconstructed on the average every 30 years," and
"the cement concrete layer on reconstructed roads averages eight inches." Recycling estimates
are based on limited data obtained from state highway departments as well as industry surveys.
To support attainment of the 65% C&D recycling goal, EPA is currently developing program
objectives and strategic tasks focused on increasing the recycling rate of five materials that
comprise the majority of the C&D waste stream: concrete pavement, asphalt pavement, gypsum
wallboard, wood, and asphalt shingles.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control are provided by internal
procedures and systems of the Department of Commerce and the Federal Highway
Administration, the sources of data on which the EPA reports are based. The reports prepared by
the Agency are reviewed by industry experts for accuracy and soundness.
Data Quality Review: The 1998 edition of the building-related report underwent extensive
review. Due to the general acceptance of this methodology and data sources by the reviewers, the
2005 report follows the original study to the extent possible. However, comments received on
the latest revision raised concerns about the validity of the data and repeatability of the
methodology. EPA is interacting with reviewers to address their concerns.
Data Limitations: The limited point source waste assessment data used in the building-related
C&D analysis is a source of uncertainty. Additional limitations stem from the fact that in both
studies, the baseline statistics and annual rates of C&D debris generation and recycling are based
87
-------
on a series of assumptions and extrapolations and, as such, are not an empirical accounting of
national C&D debris generated or recycled.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste does not collect data on estimated
error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The need for further efforts to improve the data and the
methodology has been expressed by peer reviewers. The agency is undertaking action to secure
additional sources of information to bolster the data and fill identified data gaps, including trade
associations from specific industry sectors and additional governmental entities.
References: Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the
United States, EPA, June 1998 (EPA530-R-98-010),
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/sqg/c&d-rpt.pdf
Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States,
Franklin Associates, draft dated December 2005.
Characterization of Road and Bridge-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United
States, EPA, draft dated December 2005.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of coal combustion product ash that is used rather than disposed
Performance Database: Data to support this measure are provided by the Department of Energy
and American Coal Ash Association (ACAA). EPA collects data on generation of materials
(Toxic Release Inventory), but it does not maintain a database for utilization.
Data Source: The baseline numbers for coal combustion product (CCP) generation are tracked
by the DOE Energy Information Agency. Limited beneficial use numbers are reported on EIA
Form 767 (which is planned to be discontinued in 2007) and through TRI reporting. The ACAA
conducts a voluntary survey on coal ash generation and recycling practices of its membership,
which comprises approximately 35% of the electricity generating capacity of the United States.
The ACAA survey information is compared to the other sources of utilization data, including
data from EIA, the Portland Cement Association and other publicly available trade association
data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The CCP recycling rate is defined as the tonnage of
coal ash recycled divided by the tonnage of coal ash generated nationally by coal-fired electric
utilities. Data on domestic production of materials and products are compiled using published
data series. U.S. Department of Energy sources are used, where available; but for specific
utilization data more detailed information on the production of CCPs is available from trade
associations. The goal is to obtain a consistent historical data series for products and materials.
Data on average production as compared to utilization may provide estimates as to the
effectiveness of beneficial use outreach.
88
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control for production numbers reported on
EIA 767 are provided by the Department of Energy's internal procedures and systems. Data on
utilization are reviewed by CCP industry experts for accuracy.
Data Quality Review: The reporting of utilization data is voluntary and requires extrapolation
and integration with several sources of data. TRI data does not track end-use and does not
require reporting of materials by their utilization
Data Limitations: Data limitations stem from the fact that the baseline statistics and annual
rates of utilization are collected from different sources and are not mandated by statute or
regulation. New data sources may be compared to historic data to determine if trends are
reasonable and expected.
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 survey on production data conducted by EIA is
going to be discontinued effective 2007, other measurement techniques will be required to
accurately track production and utilization.
References: The American Coal Ash Annual Survey is located at http://www.acaa-usa.org/.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Tons of MSW recycled over total net costs of recovery [PART efficiency-under
development]
Performance Database: Data are provided by the Department of Commerce and Waste News
Survey. EPA does not maintain a database for this information.
Data Source: The baseline numbers for municipal solid waste (MSW)
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.
In addition, data on the costs of MSW recycling are reported in the Waste News "Municipal
Recycling Survey." The data is based on an annual survey of 30 most populous cities and reports
budgets for MSW recycling and disposal, not actual expenditures. Waste News provides the
only study of recycling and disposal costs that is annually updated and includes a range of cities
(based on largest cities by population). The costs also reflect a range of recycling programs (i.e.,
curbside, drop-off, etc.). The cost data will be supplemented by a survey of up to nine cities for
disposal and recycling cost information.
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,
89
-------
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.
The total net cost of MSW recycling is calculated by multiplying the net cost of recycling per ton
by the total tons of MSW recycled in a given year. The net cost of recycling per ton is estimated
by subtracting the total cost per ton for solid waste disposal from the total cost per ton for
recycling, based on the Waste News survey. Several sources, including Waste News, indicate
that the cost of recycling is less expensive than solid waste disposal. Therefore, net costs reflect
cost savings associated with recycling. Other sources, such as EPA's Cutting the Waste Stream
in Half: Community Record Setter Show How (EPA-530-R-99-013), EPA's Evaluation of
Diversion and Costs for Selected Drop-Off Recycling Programs (EPA-600-R-95-109), and
Carnegie Mellon University's Evaluating the Environmental Effectiveness of Recycling in
Pittsburgh all show similar results.
Recycling costs per ton are based on the median cost per ton reported in the Waste News Survey.
The survey reports the total tonnage recycled and the total recycling budget for each city.
Therefore, to estimate the unit recycling costs, the total recycling budget for each city is divided
by the total tons recycled for each city.
Total disposal costs per ton are based on the median cost per ton as reported in the Waste News
survey. The disposal cost per ton for each city is estimated by dividing the total disposal cost by
the total tonnage of solid waste disposed. The disposal costs are obtained by subtracting the total
MSW budget from the recycling budget. The total tonnage of solid waste disposed by each city
is estimated by subtracting the recycling tonnage from the quotient of recycling tonnage divided
by recycling rate.
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.
In addition, Waste News reports municipal budget data, not realized costs. Ideally, realized costs
would be used for the performance measure. Furthermore, Waste News' method of selecting
cities, based on largest total population, means that the sample changes from year to year in a
non-random pattern. For example, growing cities which enter the top 30 will be added to the
survey, while those dropping off the top 30 list will be removed from the survey. The frequency
of these changes depends on how often the U.S. Census updates city population figures and rates
of change in these cities. Accordingly, a survey of up to nine cities for recycling and disposal
cost data will be useful in supplementing the Waste News data.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality assurance and quality control are provided by the Department of
90
-------
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. In addition, Waste News is a widely recognized source for
MSW recycling and disposal costs for the 30 most populous cities. The survey of up to nine
additional cities for recycling and disposal cost data will also help to provide support for the
Waste News data or highlight potential limitations.
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. Waste News
is also widely recognized among the MSW industry.
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.
In addition, Waste News reports municipal budget data, not realized costs. Ideally, realized costs
would be used for the performance measure. Furthermore, Waste News' method of selecting
cities, based on largest total population, means that the sample changes from year to year in a
non-random pattern. For example, growing cities which enter the top 30 will be added to the
survey, while those dropping off the top 30 list will be removed from the survey. The frequency
of these changes depends on how often the U.S. Census updates city population figures and rates
of change in these cities. Accordingly, a survey of up to nine cities for recycling and disposal
cost data will be useful in supplementing the Waste News data.
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:
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2003 Facts and Figures, EPA, April
2005 (EPA530-F-05-003), http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm.
Waste News, "Municipal Recycling Survey," (available annually).
Cutting the Waste Stream in Half: Community Record-Setters Show How, EPA-530-R-99-013
June 1999.
Evaluation of Diversion and Costs for Select Drop-Off Recycling Programs., EPA-600-R-95-109,
June 1995.
Evaluating the Environmental Effectiveness of Recycling in Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon
University, May 2002.
91
-------
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
* Facilities under control per dollar of program cost (program cost=permit Costs +
base Program Appropriations) [PART efficiency-under development]
Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program and provides
information on facilities under control.
Costs by the permittee are estimated through the annual cost estimates contained in the
Information Collection Requests (ICR) supporting statements relevant to the RCRA Base
Program. ICRs are contained in the Federal Docket Management System. Base program
appropriation information is maintained in the Budget Automation System (BAS).
Data Source: The Office of Solid Waste develops ICRs and ensures they have active ICRs
approved by the OMB for all of their RCRA permitting and base program information collection
activities. The Budget Automation System (BAS) automates EPA's budget processes, including
planning, budgeting, execution, and reporting. Budget data is entered at a general level by offices
and regions or by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability:
Numerator - Facilities under control is an outcome based measure as permits or similar
mechanisms are not issued until facilities have met standards or permit conditions that are based
on human health or environmental standards. Under the corresponding performance measure,
95% of facilities are to be under control by 2008.
Denominator - The denominator is the sum of two costs. The first is permitting costs based on
Information Collection Requests for the base RCRA program. The costs will take into account
recent rulemakings, including the Burden Reduction Rulemaking (published April 2006), which
will impact program expenditures. The costs will also take into account one time costs
associated with first year implementation.
The second program cost in the denominator is the input of a three year rolling average
appropriation for Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and State Tribal and Grant
(STAG) program. Corrective action programs costs will not be included but will be addressed in
a separate efficiency measure. A rolling average of appropriations is more appropriate since
some of the facility controls depend upon past resources. Issuance time for a permit, for
example, can exceed one year with public hearings and appeals. The cumulative number of
facilities with controls in place is appropriate (rather than a single year's increment) because the
appropriations are used to maintain facilities that already have controls in place (e.g. inspections
and permit renewals) as well as to extend the number of facilities with controls.
92
-------
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC of the ICR costs is based on internal and external review of the
data. BAS data undergoes quality assurance and data quality review through the Chief Financial
Officer.
Data Quality Review: None.
Data Limitations: The data sources for the program costs identified in the denominator of the
measure include all of the RCRA base program appropriations (e.g. RCRA Subtitle D program
implementation) and not just costs for permitting. Accordingly, the measure cannot be compared
with other similar government programs. After the 2008 facilities under control goal is attained,
EPA will recalculate the efficiency measure taking into account the new long-term 2011 goal
which includes both new permits and permit renewals.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently OSW does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: As the measure is short term and likely to applied only for
the next two years, no new efforts to improve the data or methodology have been identified
References: Federal Document Management System www.regulations.gov; Budget Automation
Management System
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Number of tribes covered by an adequate and recently-approved integrated solid
waste management plan
• Number of closed, cleaned-up or upgraded open dumps in I ndian Country and on
other Tribal lands
Performance Database: The Indian Health Service, in partnership with EPA's regional offices
and the Office of Solid Waste, reports the annual data to support these measures.
Data Source: OSW and the Indian Health Service are co-sponsors of the Tribal Solid Waste
Interagency Workgroup. The formation of this workgroup resulted from the 1998 Report to
Congress on open dumps on Indian Lands. The Indian Health Service was tasked to identify the
high threat sites in need of upgrade or closure, and report the information to the WSTARS
Database. The member tribal data are extrapolated to generate a national statistic.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Tribal Solid Waste Interagency Workgroup's
Tribal Solid Waste Management Assistance Project is a national program that began in 1999 to
increase the number of tribes covered by an adequate and recently-approved integrated waste
management plan, and to close, clean -up, or upgrade open dumps in Indian country and on other
tribal lands.
The latest EPA and IHS annual data show that an annual, incremental rate will allow the tribes to
reach the goals established by 2011.
93
-------
QA/QC Procedures: The IHS WSTARS data are reported voluntarily by federally recognized
tribal members. Quality assurance and quality control are provided by internal procedures of the
fflS WSTARS reporting process.
Data Quality Review: The data are reviewed by the EPA and IHS for data quality. The data are
considered to be accurate on a national scale.
Data Limitations: The WSTARS contains data pertaining to the open dumps and solid waste
management plans of the federal recognized tribal members. The WSTARS membership
comprises all of the 562 federally recognized tribes of the United States. Because the data may
be limited in certain regions of the country, extrapolations to a national statistic may be
inaccurate.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) does not collect data on
estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: No new efforts to gather different or additional data are
contemplated at this time.
References: The IHS, WSTARS data are available from the HIS website at www.ihs.gov.
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Number of inspections and exercises conducted at oil storage facilities required to have
Facility Response Plans
• Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters per million program dollars spent annually on
prevention and preparedness at FRP facilities [PART efficiency]
• Percentage of inspected facilities subject to SPCC regulations found to be in
compliance. [PART performance]
• Percentage of inspected facilities subject to FRP regulations found to be in compliance.
[PART performance]
Performance Database: The EPA Annual Commitment System (ACS) in BAS is the database
for the number of inspections/exercises at SPCC and FRP facilities. Using data submitted
directly by Regional staff as well as data in ACS , Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
tracks in a spreadsheet national information about Regional activities at FRP facilities. Data
about gallons of oil spilled are maintained in a National Response Center (NRC) database that
reflects information reported to the NRC by those responsible for individual oil spills.
Data Source: Data concerning inspections/exercises at FRP and SPCC facilities are provided by
Regional staff. Data concerning gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters are gathered from the
publicly available National Response Center database. Data about program expenditures are
provided by EPA HQ and Regional staff.
94
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The spill/exercise data are entered by Regional staff
experienced in data entry. In every case, direct data (rather than surrogates open to
interpretation) are entered.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are regularly compared to similar data from the past to identify
potential errors.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA regularly reviews recent data, comparing them to data gathered in
the past at similar times of year and in the same Regions. Any questionable data are verified by
direct contact with the Regional staff responsible for providing the data.
Data Limitations: The NRC data will reflect the extent to which those responsible for oil spills
accurately report them to the NRC.
Error Estimate: Data reported by the Regions shoulds be relatively free of error. There may be
some error in the NRC data, due to the fact that some spills might not be reported and/or some
spills might be reported by more than one person. NRC and EPA procedures should identify
multiple reports of the same spill, but it is not usually possible to identify an unreported spill.
New/Improved Data or Systems: There are no current plans to develop a dedicated system, to
manage the various data.
References: For additional information on the Oil program, see www.epa.gov/oilspill
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Aver age state of emergency response readiness as determined by readiness criteria
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
95
-------
FY 2008 Core ER target is to improve emergency response and homeland security readiness by
10 points from the FY 2007 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 possibly
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
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 have 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.
96
-------
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Number of final Superfund site assessment decisions [PA R T perfor mance]
• Superfund sites with human health protection achieved [PART performance]
• Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater migration under control [PART
performance]
• Annual number of Superfund sites with remedy construction completed [PART
performance]
• Number of Superfund sites that are site wide ready for reuse
• Human exposures under control per million dollars obligated [PART efficiency]
• Superfund Federal Facilities Response dollars obligated annually per operable units
completing construction [PART efficiency]
• Voluntary removal actions overseen by EPA and completed annually [PART
performance]
• Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually [PART performance]
• Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually per million dollars [PART
efficiency]
• Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where all remedies have completed
construction [PART]
• Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites wherethefinal remedial decision for
contaminants at the site has been determined [PART]
• Program dollars expended annually per operable unit completing clean-up activities
[PART efficiency]
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. The Integrated Financial Management System
(IFMS) is EPA's financial management system and the official system of record for budget and
financial data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Each performance measure is a specific variable within
CERCLIS, except for the financial information.
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
97
-------
Agency. Site-specific obligations are distinguished through the Site/Project field of the IFMS
account number that is assigned to every financial transaction.
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.
QA/QC Procedures: To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls
are in place: 1) Superfund Program 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) Quick Reference Guides
(QRG), which are available in the CERCLIS Documents Database and provide detailed
instructions on data entry for nearly every module in CERCLIS; 5) Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishment (SCAP) Reports within CERCLIS, which serve as a means to track, budget,
plan, and evaluate progress towards meeting Superfund targets and measures; (6) a historical
lockout feature in 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 is contained in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPEVI) Fiscal
Year 2006/2007 (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim06.htm).
CERCLIS operation and further development is taking place under the following administrative
control quality assurance procedures: 1) Office of Environmental Information Interim Agency
Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.4
(http://cfintl.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsdweb/otop/policies/infoman.cfm); 2) the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf) 3) Agency platform, software and hardware
standards (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf); 4) Quality Assurance Requirements in
all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being developed and maintained
(http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines); and 5) Agency security procedures
(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView). In addition, specific
controls are in place for system design, data conversion and data capture, and CERCLIS outputs.
The financial data are compliant with the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) of
1982 and received FY 2005 FMFIA certification
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.
El SGF7_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
98
-------
concluded that the Agency "has good management controls to ensure accuracy of the
information that is reported," and "Congress and the public can rely upon the information EPA
provides regarding construction completions." Further information on this report is available at
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm. The GAO's report, Superfimd: Information on the
Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, was prepared to verify the
accuracy of the information in CERCLIS on sites' cleanup progress. The report estimates that
the cleanup status of National Priority List (NPL) sites reported by CERCLIS as of September
30, 1997, is accurate for 95 percent of the sites. Additional information on the Status of Sites
may be obtained at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241.pdf Another OIG audit,
Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30,
2002, evaluated the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and consistency of the data entered into
CERCLIS. The report provided 11 recommendations to improve controls for CERCLIS data
quality. EPA concurred 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. Additional information about this report is available
at http ://www. epa. gov/oigearth/eroom .htm.
The IG reviews annually the end-of-year Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) data, in an informal process, to verify the data
supporting the performance measures. Typically, there are no published results.
The Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) was signed in August 2003 (http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf).
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: 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
disagreed with the study design and report conclusions; however, the report provided 11
recommendations with which EPA concurred and either implemented or continues to implement.
These include: 1) FY 02/03 SPEVI Chapter 2 update was improved to define the Headquarters'
and Regional roles and responsibilities for maintaining planning and accomplishment data in
ERCLIS; 2) language was added to the FY 04/05 SPEVI Appendix A, Section A.A.5 'Site Status
Indicators' to clarify the use of the non-NPL status code of "SX"; 3) a data quality section was
added to the FY 04/05 SPEVI Appendix A, Section A.A.6 'Data Quality'; 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 SPEVI. For
changes implemented due to this OIG audit, see the Change Log for this SPEVI at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/pdfs/changelog6.pdf); The development and
implementation of a quality assurance process for CERCLIS data continues. This process
99
-------
includes delineating data quality objectives for GPRA targets, program measures, and regional
data. The Agency has begun reporting compliance with the current data quality objectives.
Error Estimate: The GAO's report, Superfimd: 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 improved some
controls over CERCLIS data, the Agency disagreed and strongly objected to the study design
and report conclusions.
New/Improved Data or Systems: A CERCLIS modernization effort, initiated in 2002, is
complete. As a result of the modernization effort, CERCLIS has standards for data quality and
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 developed data quality audit reports and provided these reports to the Regions.
These reports document data quality for timeliness, completeness, and accuracy as determined by
the Superfund data sponsors to encourage and ensure high 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 2008, 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 2008, 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 programmatic
accomplishments reporting and 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
100
-------
the data fields in CERCLIS - eliminating the manual data entry/human error impacts.
In an effort to better facilitate and capture important Superfund data, a new Five-Year Review
Module was released in CERCLIS in June 2006. In addition, a new Reuse/Acreage Module is
currently planned on being released in CERCLIS in June of 2007.
EPA plans to replace IFMS with a new system in FY 2008.
References: OIG audit Superfund Construction Completion Reporting, (No. E1SGF7_05_0102_
8100030) and Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality, (No. 2002-P-00016,
http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/eroom.htm); and the GAO report, Superfund Information on the
Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98241.pdf). The
Superfund Program Implementation Manuals for the fiscal years 1987 to the current manual
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/guidance/index.htm). The Quality Management Plan
(QMP) for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (August 2003,
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf). Office of Environmental Information Interim
Agency Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.4
(http://cfmtl.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsdweb/otop/policies/infoman.cfm). The Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf). EPA platform, software and hardware
standards (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf). Quality Assurance Requirements in all
contract vehicles under which CERCLIS are being developed and maintained
(http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines). EPA security procedures
(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView).
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of RCRA CA facilities with current human exposures under control
[PART performance]
• Percentage of RCRA CA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under
control [PART performance]
• Percentage of RCRA construction completions
• Percent increase of final remedy components constructed at RCRA CA facilities per
federal, state, and private sector dollars per year [PART efficiency]
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database that supports EPA's RCRA program.
101
-------
Data Source: The states and Regions enter data. A "High", "Medium", or "Low" entry is made
in the database with respect to final assessment decision. A "yes" or "no" entry is made in the
database with respect to meeting the human exposures to toxins controlled and releases to
groundwater controlled indicators. An entry will be made in the database to indicate 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 state files. EPA's
Regional offices and authorized states enter data on a continual basis. For the efficiency
measure, federal and state cost data are assembled from their respective budgets. Private sector
costs are derived from data published in the Environmental Business Journal.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: 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. Within RCRAInfo, the Corrective Action Module tracks the status of facilities
that require, or may require, corrective actions, including information related to the four
measures outlined above. Performance 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 track the RCRA Corrective Action
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, but facilities or their consultants
may assist EPA in the evaluation by providing information on the current environmental
conditions. The complete constructions of remedies measure is used to track the RCRA
program's progress in getting its highest-priority contaminated facilities moving towards final
cleanup. Like with the environmental indicators determination, the lead regulators for the facility
select the remedy and determine when the facility has completed construction of that remedy.
Construction completions are collected on both an area-wide and site-wide basis for sake of the
efficiency measure.
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 EPA's Hazardous Waste Information System
102
-------
(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 the 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 for the performance measures. 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. For the efficiency
measure, private sector costs are not publicly available. Estimates of these costs are derived
from Environmental Business Journal data.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste does not collect data on estimated
error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA has successfully implemented new tools for managing
environmental information to support federal and state programs, replacing the old data systems
(the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System and the Biennial Reporting
System) with RCRAInfo. RCRAInfo allows for tracking of information on the regulated
universe of RCRA hazardous waste handlers, such as facility status, regulated activities, and
compliance history. The system also captures detailed data on the generation of hazardous waste
from large quantity generators and on the waste management practices of 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: GAO's 1995 Report on EPA's Hazardous Waste Information System reviewed
whether national RCRA information systems support EPA and the states in managing their
hazardous waste programs. This historical document is available on the Government Printing
Office Website (http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/study/studyhtm.html).
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
» N umber of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration. (Tracked as: Number of leaking underground storage tank
cleanups completed.) [PART performance]
» N umber of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration in Indian country. (Tracked as: Number of leaking
underground storage tank cleanups completed in I ndian Country.) [PART
performance]
103
-------
* Cleanups complete (3-year rolling average) per total cleanup dollars, (from public and
private sector) [PART efficiency-under development]
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 Agency is working to evaluate and update its current LUST efficiency
measure with its state partners.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The cumulative number of confirmed releases where
cleanup has been initiated and where the state has determined that no further actions are
currently necessary to protect human health and the environment, includes sites where post-
closure monitoring is not necessary as long as site specific (e.g., risk based) cleanup goals have
been met. Site characterization, monitoring plans and site-specific cleanup goals must be
established and cleanup goals must be attained for sites being remediated by natural attenuation
to be counted in this category. (See http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/pm032603.pdf.)
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's regional offices verify and then forward the data in an Excel
spreadsheet to OUST. OUST staff examine the data and resolve any discrepancies with the
regional offices. The data are displayed in an Excel spreadsheet on a region-by-region basis,
which is a way regional staff can check their data.
Data Quality Review: None
Data Limitations: Data quality depends on the accuracy and completeness of state records.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: FY 2006 Mid-Year Activity Report, June 20, 2006 (updated semiannually);
FY 2006 End-of-Year Activity Report, from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground
Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10, dated November 14,
2006, http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/ca_06_34.pdf
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• 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
• Percentage of Superfund sites at which settlement or enforcement action taken
before the start of a remedial action (RA)
104
-------
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 Program 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) Quick Reference Guides
(QRG), which are available in the CERCLIS Documents Database and provide detailed
instructions on data entry for nearly every module in CERCLIS; 5) Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishment (SCAP) Reports within CERCLIS, which serve as a means to track, budget,
plan, and evaluate progress towards meeting Superfund targets and measures; (6) a historical
lockout feature in 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 is contained in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPEVI) Fiscal
Year 2006/2007 (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim06.htm).
CERCLIS operation and further development is taking place under the following administrative
control quality assurance procedures: 1) Office of Environmental Information Interim Agency
Life Cycle Management Policy Agency Directive 2100.4
(http://cfmtl.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsdweb/otop/policies/infoman.cfm); 2) the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswer_qmp.pdf) 3) Agency platform, software and hardware
standards (http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/itroadmap.nsf); 4) Quality Assurance Requirements in
all contract vehicles under which CERCLIS is being developed and maintained
(http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines); and 5) Agency security procedures
(http://basin.rtpnc.epa.gov/ntsd/ITRoadMap.nsf/Security7OpenView). In addition, specific
controls are in place for system design, data conversion and data capture, and CERCLIS outputs.
Data Quality 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
105
-------
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan,
approved April 11, 2001. [Revised QMP submitted in August 2006, but not yet approved.]
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the manage material streams,
conserve resources and appropriately manage waste long-term goal (PART
Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the mitigation, management
and long-term stewardship of contaminated sites long-term goal (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of the Land Preservation and Restoration Research Program's long-term goals, the
Land program annually develops a list of key research outputs scheduled for completion by the
end of each fiscal year. This list is finalized by the start of the fiscal year, and no changes are
made after this point. The program then tracks quarterly the progress towards completion of
these key outputs against pre-determined schedules and milestones. The final score is the percent
of key outputs from the original list that are successfully completed on-time.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual outputs be clearly
defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year. Progress toward
completing these activities is monitored by ORD management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research outputs being
measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program reviews are
used to measure research quality and impact
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
106
-------
Contaminated Sites Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/csites.pdf (last
accessed on January 3, 2007)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/rcra.pdf (last accessed on January 3, 2007)
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Average time (in days) for technical support centers to process and respond to
requests for technical document review, statistical analysis and evaluation of
characterization and treatability study plans. (Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress in meeting customer
needs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The dates of requests, due dates, response time, and
customer outcome feedback will be tabulated for the Engineering, Ground Water, and Site
Characterization Technical Support Centers.
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 4 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2008 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
107
-------
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).
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 2008 Performance Measure:
108
-------
• Million of dollars in termite structural damage avoided annually by ensuring safe
and effective pesticides are registered/reregistered and available for termite
treatment (PART measure)
Performance Database: Baseline data on the number of owner-occupied structures is available
from US Census Housing data. Estimates of the extent of termiticide use and termite-related
damage are available from several industry and academic sources.
Data Source: Baseline data are derived from several sources, including U.S. Census data,
surveys conducted by the pest control industry, and academic publications.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: This measure is representative of the explicit statutory
mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to ensure the
availability of pesticides to permit their societal benefits. An important role of the National
Pesticide Program is to prevent harm and preserve a level of public protection.
Pesticides are the primary means to treat or prevent termite infestation. These pesticides are not
available for use to treat or prevent this problem unless the National Pesticide Program evaluates
their safety and allows them into the marketplace through the Registration or Registration
Review programs. Timely and effective licensing actions are required for homeowners to have
access to the benefits of these pesticides and avoid the significant economic loss from termite
structural damage.
Termites are one of the most economically important insect pests in the United States. More
than 600,000 U.S. homes suffer termite damage every year. Homeowners insurance can help
recover losses from fires, storms, and earthquakes, but it is almost impossible to carry insurance
against termite infestation and damage. This measure will utilize data that estimate the number
of homes that suffer termite-related damage on an annual basis, the value of this damage, the
number and frequency of termiticide treatments, and an estimate of the number of treated homes
that would have received termite damage absent the use of pesticide control measures.
Through this measure, the Agency will evaluate the extent of termiticide use to protect owner-
occupied housing units, average termite damage on a per housing unit basis, and an estimate of
the termite structural damage avoided as a result of having safe and effective termite control
products available for use.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring the
quality of the data used in this measure. Academic research undergoes strict peer-review prior to
publication. The Agency will work with non-governmental providers of data to ensure that
quality data are used in developing this measure.
Data Quality Reviews: Staff and management of the Office of Pesticide Programs will perform
the data quality reviews under the leadership of our QA/QC officers.
109
-------
Data Limitations: This measure continues to be refined. Currently available data were not
collected for performance accountability purposes and may lack precision. Non-pesticide
treatment actions may account for some structural damage avoided.
Error Estimate: Error estimates for established surveys are documented by these organizations
in their survey reports.
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will utilize existing data as well as new data
developed from industry and academic research.
References: U.S. Census Bureau data (www.census.gov/compendia/statab/files/house.html);
Univ. of GA Entomology Dept, (www.ent.uga.edu/IPM/slOO/household.htm); Natl. Pest
Management Association.
(www.pestworld.org/Database/Article.asp? ArticleID=34&UserType=];
"Arizona Termites of Economic Importance", Better Pest Control, p. 11, June 2005, University of
Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; "Termites: Are They Chewing Up Your
Home?", National Pest Management Association; Ipsos-Insight 2005 Survey for Dow Agro
(www. dowagro. com/sentri con/termiteri sk/facts. htm).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Billions of dollars in crop loss avoided by ensuring that effective pesticides are
available to address pest infestations. (PART measure)
Performance Database: To determine the value of potential crop loss avoided from the use of
pesticides, baseline and future data are collected on crop market prices, crop production, total
acres grown, acres treated with pesticides, and the percentage of crop yield loss avoided as a
result of the use of pesticides.
Data Source: Baseline data on crop market prices, crop production, and total acres grown are
from United States Department of Agriculture (USD A) databases, while the percentage of
potential yield loss without pesticides is estimated by Biological and Economic Analysis
Division (BEAD) scientists based on published and unpublished studies. The number of acres
treated with the pesticides are based on data submitted by State Departments of Agriculture.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Agency will provide an estimate of the value of
the potential crop loss avoided by growers from the use of registered pesticides. The method for
estimating this value involves calculating the potential crop loss avoided based on the acres
treated with the pesticides, per acre crop production and prices received, and potential yield
without the pesticides. In an attempt to measure the magnitude of this potential crop loss
avoided, the value is measured as a percent of state production in value and national production
in value.
The pesticides selected for this measure will be the registered Section 3 pesticides which were
previously Section 18 emergency use registrations. The data used in the analysis of the number
of acres treated with the pesticides will be based on USDA databases and data submitted by the
110
-------
State Agricultural Departments. The percentage of potential yield loss without the pesticides
will be based on the review of published and unpublished efficacy studies by BEAD scientists.
The United States (U.S.) has a large cropland, productive soils, and a variety of favorable
agricultural climates. These factors contribute to and enable the U.S. to be a uniquely large and
productive agricultural producer. The value of agricultural crop production in the U.S. totaled
$200 billion15 in 2003. Major field crops in value are corn ($21 billion), soybeans ($15 billion),
wheat ($6 billion), and cotton ($3.6 billion), while tomatoes ($1.9 billion), apples ($1.6 billion),
and strawberries ($1.2 billion) are major fruit/vegetable crops in value.
American agricultural production far outweighs domestic consumption and the U.S. is one of the
World's largest agricultural exporters, worth approximately $50 billion annually (one quarter of
total U.S. agricultural crop production). In order to be competitive in the world market and to
provide sufficient market supply for American consumers, U.S. farmers need to be able to use
pesticides for pest control as long as they do not present significant risks to human health or the
environment (USDA/ERS, 2004).
The goal for this measure is to develop long-term consistent and comparable information on the
benefits of pesticide usage.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring the
quality of the data derived from States, and USD A. The data used for the outcome measure is
based on well-established QA/QC procedures found in Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer's
Guide -2(QA/G-9R)2 (PDF 61pp, 225K), http://www.epa.gov/quality/dqa.html, which provides
guidance on assessing data quality criteria and performance specifications.
Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize USDA/NASS methods of collecting and
analyzing data.
Data Limitations: This measure is under development. Data limitations will be characterized
during developmental stages of the measure and a complete evaluation will be provided in the
Agency's annual Performance and Accountability Report.
Error Estimate: USDA provides discussion of analytical methods and associated variability
estimates in its chemical use publications. For example, see the Agricultural Chemical
Distribution Tables section, Survey and Estimation Procedure section and Reliability section of
the USDA publication Agricultural Chemical Usage 2005 Field Crops Summary
(http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsFC//2000s/2006/AgriChemUsFC-05-17-
2006.pdf).
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will utilize existing data and data systems.
References:
USDA data sources include:
' The value received by farmers was $200 billion.
Ill
-------
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). Agricultural Chemical Usage.
http ://usda.mannlib. Cornell. edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentlnfo. do?documentID= 1001
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). Agricultural Statistics, http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agstats.htm
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent of urban watersheds that exceeds the National Pesticide Program aquatic
life benchmarks for 3 pesticides of concern. (PART measure)
Performance Database: Baseline data are obtained from the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program's 2006 report: Pesticides in
the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001 (http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/). Future
data will be compiled from future reports.
Data Source: Baseline data are derived from the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program's 2006 report: Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-
2001. USGS is currently developing sampling plans for 2008 - 2017. Future data will be
available from USGS as it is made available on public websites.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Water quality is a critical endpoint for measuring
exposure and risk to the environment. It is a high-level measure of our ability to reduce exposure
from key pesticides of concern. This measure evaluates the reduction in water concentrations of
pesticides as a means to protect aquatic life. Reduced water column concentration is a major
indicator of the efficacy of risk assessment, risk management, risk mitigation and risk
communication actions. It will illuminate program progress in meeting the Agency's strategic
pesticide and water quality goals.
The goal is to develop long-term consistent and comparable information on the amount of
pesticides in streams, ground water, and aquatic ecosystems to support sound management and
policy decisions. USGS-NAWQA data can help inform EPA of the long-term results of its risk
management decisions based on trends in pesticide concentrations. Recent USGS information
indicates exceedences of aquatic life benchmarks in 18 to 40% of the urban and agricultural
watersheds sampled. USGS is currently developing sampling plans for 2008 - 2017. Draft plans
call for yearly monitoring in 8 agricultural watersheds; bi-yearly sampling in 3 agricultural
dominated watersheds; and sampling every four years in a second set of 25 agricultural
watersheds. The sampling frequency for these 36 agricultural sites will range from
approximately 15 to 35 sites samples per year based on the watershed landuse class. The USGS
has no plans in this time period for similar sampling in urban watersheds. Intermediate (2008 -
2010) goals will be refined when the USGS plan is finalized in late FY07.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan in ensuring the
quality of the data obtained from USGS. The data that will be used for the outcome measure is
based on well-established QA-QC procedures in the USGS-NAWQA program
112
-------
(http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/rep/qcsummary/ and
http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/index.html).
Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize USGS NAWQA data. USGS is preeminent in
the field of water quality sampling. Since 1991, the USGS NAWQA program has been
collecting and analyzing data and information in major river basins and aquifers across the
Nation. The program has undergone periodic external peer-review
(http://dels.nas.edu/water/monitoring.php).
Data Limitations: This measure is under development. Data limitations will be characterized
during developmental stages of the measure and a complete evaluation will be provided in the
NAWQA 2011 "Cycle II" Study Report. EPA will request that USGS add additional
insecticides to their sampling protocols to establish base line information for newer products that
have been replacing the organophosphates (e.g., the synthetic pyrethroids).
Error Estimate: The USGS database provides estimates of analytical methods and associated
variability estimates (http://ga.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.qa.html).
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will utilize existing data and data systems.
References: USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program's 2006 report:
Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992-2001.
The NAWQA 2011 "Cycle II" Study Report does not exist at this time - the sampling is in
progress, thus there is no citation at this time. USGS has not published their sampling plan.
There will be a USGS report in the 2011 timeframe.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent reduction in moderate to severe incidents for six acutely toxic agricultural
pesticides with the highest incident rate (PART measure)
Performance Database: Most of the nation's Poison Control Centers (PCCs) participate in a
national data collection system known as the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS).
Among the types of exposures reported are pesticide related exposures. The data collected
include date of call, age, gender, location of exposure, route of exposure, substance exposed to,
route of exposure, initial symptom assessment, treatment received and an evaluation of the
medical outcome. Symptoms are categories as minor, moderate, or major with criteria for each
category.
Data Source: PCCs provide telephone consultation to individuals and health care providers.
Most PPCs are operated by a hospital or university and in aggregate serve 70-80% of the U.S.
population. Each case is a separate file that needs to be manually loaded into an EPA database
prior to performing statistical analysis. Trend analysis of the reported incidents could reveal
problem chemicals and the effects of previous actions taken.
113
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: We assume resources will continue to be available for
the Agency to purchase the data and that adequate resources will be available at the local level to
continue to fund the centers. The reduction in poisoning incidents is expected to result from
mitigation measures made during the reregi strati on, from greater availability of lower risk
alternative products resulting from the Agency's reduce risk registration process, from the
continued implemention of worker protection enforcement and training.
QA/QC Procedures: PCCs must be certified by the American Association of Poison Control
Centers (AAPCC). To be certified a PPC must have a board certified physician on call at all
times, have AAPCC certified specialists available to handle all calls, have a comprehensive file
of toxicology information readily available, maintain Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs),
keep records on all cases and have an ongoing quality assurance program. In addition, EPA staff
screen each case before analyzing the data set.
Data Quality Review: EPA conducts regular case reviews and audits to assure quality assurance
of data collected. Also, as mentioned above, EPA staff reviews each case before entering into its
database.
Data Limitations: Because PCC participation is voluntary and the available resources vary from
year to year, the data contains uncertainty.
Error Estimate: Because the incidents are self-reported, there is a potential bias in the data.
However, there is no reason to believe that the bias will change from year to year
New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time.
References: Poison Control Centers TESS (Toxic Exposure Surveillance System)
http://www.aapcc.org/poisonl .htm
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Incidents per 100,000 potential risk events in population occupationally exposed to
pesticides (PART measure)
Performance Database: Most of the nation's Poison Control Centers (PCCs) participate in a
national data collection system known as the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS).
Among the types of exposures reported are pesticide related exposures in both residential and
occupational settings. The data collected include date of call, age, gender, location of exposure,
route of exposure, substance exposed to, initial symptom assessment, treatment received and an
evaluation of the medical outcome. Symptoms are categorized as minor, moderate, or major
with standard criteria for each category.
Data Sources:
Health Incident Data:
114
-------
Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (PCC/TESS)
The Association of American Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) began collecting data for the
purpose of identifying the leading hazards to humans from poisoning and to provide resources
for the management of these exposures. Currently, the PCCs service approximately 98% of the
nation.
Poison Control Centers are usually run by a hospital or university. Approximately 99% of the
nation's Poison Control Centers (PCCs) send incident data to the Toxic Exposure Surveillance
System (TESS). The national data collection system started in 1983. Each PCC receives a
minimum of 10,000 calls annually. About 13% of calls are from health care providers treating
patients and 87% of calls are from individuals who need assistance in managing an exposure to
poison. From 1993-1996, 92% of reported exposures occurred in a residential setting. PCC
collects data on exposures to any substance and pesticide poisonings make up about 3% of all
cases. PCCs submit data to TESS 2 to 4 times per year.
Data from the PCC/TESS database will be used for the numerator.
The denominator number is calculated from several sources: Department of Labor's Bureau of
Labor Statistics, which captures employment characteristics for the national workforce. The
estimate of agricultural field workers is from the Department of Labor's National Agricultural
Workers Survey; The denominator also uses EPA/OPP's annual report of Certified Applicators,
and an estimate for the number of field entries by farmworkers from the 1992 Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Trend analysis of the reported incidents could reveal
problem chemicals and the effects of previous actions taken.
Calculation Description:
For the Numerator :
Universe of Occupationally Exposed Individuals:
1. Certified Applicators = 1,100,000
2. "Under the Supervision" Applicators (Assume 4 X CA) = 4,000,000
3. Other Occupational Pesticide Users = 2,500,000*
* = Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates there are 50,000,000 employees in non-
agricultural fields that we believe utilize pesticides as part of their business (e.g.,
healthcare support; food preparation; building & grounds cleaning &
maintenance; production; etc.). We assume that 5% of those employees apply
pesticides.
4. Agricultural Farmworkers = 1,800,000
Potential Pesticide Risk Events:
115
-------
For occupational users (Groups #1-3 above), we assume every pesticide application has
the potential to create a pesticide incident with adverse health effects. We conservatively
estimate each individual in those groups makes 4 pesticide applications per year.
Therefore,
7,600,000 occupational users X 4 applications/year = 30,400,000 Potential Pesticide
Risk Events/Year
Agricultural Farmworkers spend an average of 105 days/year in the field (1992
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard). We
assume that 5% of field entries present potential risk from pesticide exposure. Therefore,
105 days per/year X 5% = 5.25 Potential Pesticide Risk Events/Year/Farmworker
5.25 X 1,800,000 Ag Farmworkers = 9,450,000 Potential Pesticide Risk Events/Year
30,400,000 + 9,450,000 = 39,850,000 Total Potential Pesticide Risk Events/Year
Occupational Pesticide Incidents:
The Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System recorded there were an
average of 1388 occupational pesticide incidents with adverse health impacts in 2001 -
2003, the most recent data available.
RATE OF INCIDENTS PER POTENTIAL PESTICIDE RISK EVENTS PER YEAR
1388 occupational pesticide incidents per = 3.5 incidents per 100,000
39,850,000 potential pesticide risk events/year potential pesticide risk
events/year
QA/QC Procedures: PCCs must be certified by the American Association of Poison Control
Centers (AAPCC). To be certified a PPC must have a board certified physician on call at all
times, have AAPCC certified specialists available to handle all calls, have a comprehensive file
of toxicology information readily available, maintain SOPs, keep records on all cases and have
an ongoing quality assurance program.
Data Quality Review: For the incident data, regular case reviews and audits are scheduled to
assure quality assurance of data collected by the Poison Centers. All data in the TESS system is
subject to quality assurance requirements, including occupational incidents.
Data Limitations: The data in PCC/TESS originates from the public or health-care providers
voluntary communications to the PCCs. Some number of pesticide-induced illnesses go
unreported due to difficulty in diagnosis, symptoms that are non-specific to pesticides, and the
fact that the public may not report. The under-reporting is considered a self-reporting bias.
116
-------
The denominator data for non-agricultural workers is from 2004; more recent BLS data are not
available.
Error Estimate: The number of potential risk events/year is most likely underestimated,
because we used conservative estimates in estimating the potential number of events. For
example, we estimated only 4 applications per year per individual which is likely to be a very
low estimate.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time.
References:
American Association of Poison Control centers: http://www.aapcc.org/poisonl.htm
Department of Labor's National Agricultural Workers Survey:
http ://www. dol .gov/asp/programs/agworker/naws.htm
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics: Occupational Employment and Wages,
November 2004: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ocwage_l 1092005.pdf
EPA/OPP's annual report of Certified Applicators:
http ://www. epa.gov/oppfead 1/safety/applicators/data.htm
1992 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Reduced cost per pesticide occupational incident avoided (PART efficiency)
Performance Database:
Health Incident Data
Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (PCC/TESS)
The Association of American Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) began collecting data for the
purpose of identifying the leading hazards to humans from poisoning and to provide resources
for the management of these exposures.
Poison Control Centers are usually run by a hospital or university. Approximately 99% of the
nation's Poison Control Centers (PCCs) send incident data to the Toxic Exposure Surveillance
System (TESS), the national data collection system started in 1983. Each PCC receives a
minimum of 10,000 calls annually. About 13% of calls are from health care providers treating
patients and 87% of calls are from individuals who need assistance in managing an exposure to
poison. From 1993-1996, 92% of reported exposures occurred in a residential setting. PCC
collects data on exposures to any substance and pesticide poisonings make up about 3% of all
cases. PCCs submit data to TESS 2 to 4 times per year.
Cost Data
Cost estimates are based on the President's budget and State and Regional Assistance Grants
funding documents.
117
-------
Data Source:
Health Incident Data
Poison Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (PCC/TESS)
Most cases in TESS are submitted by certified PCCs through their staff, and are received from
the public.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: This efficiency measure is based on the annual
number of occupational pesticide incidents. A critical assumption is that EPA's pesticide
program's efforts have a direct impact on the decline of pesticide incidents and that additional
external factors have no effect on the number of pesticide incidents (e.g.,all influences on
occupational incidents arise from the program's efforts). From recent assessments, we do believe
that occupational poisonings are declining and that OPP's action contribute significantly to the
reduction.
Calculation:
Worker Safety Resources ($) = Cost /Pesticide Occupational
Pesticide Occupational Incidents Avoided Incident Avoided
Worker Safety Resources = Value of extramural and Full Time Employee (FTE)
Resources from the President's Budget request identified as supporting EPA
Headquarters worker protection activities; and State and Regional Assistance Grants
(STAG) monies. Does not include headquarters resources for worker protection in the
Regi strati on/Re-Registration/Registration Review programs, because would result in
double-counting. Regional resources for field programs are in the form of FTEs, which
are parsed differently into worker protection, water quality, and strategic agricultural
initiatives by the Regions depending on their priority objectives. These data are not
currently available. An additional complication is the fact that states provide substantial
funding for these programs as well, and their contribution is not included here.
For recent years, annual STAG funds for worker safety (C&T and WP) total $6.6M. The
President's Budget has remained relatively constant at $2.7M for Agricultural Worker
Protection and $2.7M for Pesticide Applicator per year, for an average of $12M as the
numerator in the baseline calculation.
Pesticide Occupational Incidents Avoided = Using pesticide incident data from Poison
Control Centers' Toxic Exposure Surveillance System, OPP established a baseline for
average incidents per year. Use of an average of three years is appropriate to account for
inconsequential fluctuations in the counts.
This measure will be tracked as follows: we will review annual occupational incident data and
compare it with the rolling average for the baseline. If the average number of incidents from the
most recent three years is below the baseline, the difference will be the incidents avoided for use
in the calculation.
118
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Most cases in TESS are submitted by certified PCC. Certification of the
PCC requires that there be board certified physicians with expertise in toxicology on-call at all
times, poison information specialists available to handle calls, access to a major medical library,
guidelines for follow-up of each case to determine the patient's final disposition or medical
outcome. Taken together these criteria help to assure the quality of the data.
Each Poison Control Center uses standard format for data collection. Standard data elements
include location of victim at the time of exposure, substance exposed to, route of exposure, initial
symptom assessment, and evaluation of medical outcome after case follow up. Cases with
symptoms are categorized by severity as minor, moderate, or major.
Data Quality Review: Trained PCC specialists review the case data and, based on the
information provided and their knowledge of toxicology, doses, and timing of exposure,
ascertain whether the incident was caused by pesticides.
Data Limitations: Experts believe pesticide poisonings are under-reported to surveillance
sources, for reasons, including the symptoms of pesticide poisoning generally are difficult to
identify; there are few biomarkers for pesticides; and because the exposed individual may not
seek medical care or report their illness. Additionally, not all states require mandatory physician
reporting, and those that do may have difficulty enforcing that requirement.
Error Estimate: As mentioned above, under-reporting is believed to be a problem in all
pesticide incident data sets. There are a number of widely-ranging estimates for the amount of
under-reporting, ranging from 25% to as much as a factor of a thousand.
New/Improved Data or Systems: OPP collects pesticide incident data under FIFRA section
6(a)2. FIFRA is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; the statute which
governs the program functions. Section 6(a)2 is mandatory reporting required of the registrants
(registrants are those who have or seek registration of their pesticide products). However, details
important to this measure are not routinely captured in this data set. We hope to improve the
internal data systems that capture incidents reported by the regulated community. Currently,
data are difficult to use and may not have needed detail. If these data were available, they could
potentially be used to complement or replace the PCC/TESS data, depending on their quality.
References: none
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent reduction in concentrations of pesticides detected in general population
(PART measure)
Performance Database: The Agency will use the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC's)
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1999-2002 as the
baseline. For this measure, the Agency intends to report on the changes in levels of
organophosphate pesticides at the 50th percentile (or median.) This group of chemicals was
119
-------
selected for a number of reasons. A large proportion of data collected from the general
population are detectable residues (or their metabolites) for the organophosphate pesticides. In
addition, the metabolites for which the analyses are performed are derived exclusively from the
OP pesticides. The Agency selected a measure based on central tendency because it provides an
overall picture of trends and is not distorted by anomalies in the data. However, the Agency
intends to follow a range of metrics to more fully understand trends in the data. The annual
targets will change every two years because each survey is performed over a two year period.
Data Sources: NHANES (see above)
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The NHANES data were selected because the surveys
provide a statistically representative data set for the entire U.S. population. It is an ongoing
program, with funding from numerous cooperating Federal agencies. The data are based on
measurement of chemical levels in blood and urine.
QA/QC Procedures: This large scale survey is performed in strict compliance with CDC
QA/QC procedures.
Data Quality Review: The measure will utilize NHANES data. NHANES is a major program
of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). NCHS is part of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Public Health Service, and has the responsibility for
producing vital and health statistics for the Nation. The National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS) is one of the Federal statistical agencies belonging to the Interagency Council on
Statistical Policy (ICSP). The ICSP, which is led by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), is composed of the heads of the Nation's 10 principal statistical agencies plus the heads
of the statistical units of 4 nonstatistical agencies. The ICSP coordinates statistical work across
organizations, enabling the exchange of information about organization programs and activities,
and provides advice and counsel to OMB on statistical activities. The statistical activities of
these agencies are predominantly the collection, compilation, processing or analysis of
information for statistical purposes. Within this framework, NCHS functions as the Federal
agency responsible for the collection and dissemination of the Nation's vital and health statistics.
Its mission is to provide statistical information that will guide actions and policies to improve the
health of the American people.
To carry out its mission, NCHS conducts a wide range of annual, periodic, and longitudinal
sample surveys and administers the national vital statistics systems.
As the Nation's principal health statistics agency, NCHS leads the way with accurate, relevant,
and timely data. To assure the accuracy, relevance, and timeliness of its statistical products,
NCHS assumes responsibility for determining sources of data, measurement methods, methods
of data collection and processing while minimizing respondent burden; employing appropriate
methods of analysis, and ensuring the public availability of the data and documentation of the
methods used to obtain the data. Within the constraints of resource availability, NCHS
continually works to improve its data systems to provide information necessary for the
formulation of sound public policy. As appropriate, NCHS seeks advice on its statistical program
as a whole, including the setting of statistical priorities and on the statistical methodologies it
120
-------
uses. NCHS strives to meet the needs for access to its data while maintaining appropriate
safeguards for the confidentiality of individual responses.
Three web links to background on data quality are below:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/quality.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_01_02/lab_b_generaldoc.pdf#search=%22quality
%20control%20NHANES%22
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_03_04/lab_c_generaldoc.pdf#search=%22quality
%20NHANES%22
Data Limitations: Some limitations include that not all pesticides are included, it is a measure
of exposure instead of risk, and there is a time-lag between EPA actions and the CDC's analysis
of the data.
Error Estimate: There is the potential of identifying metabolites that comes from both a
pesticide and another source.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Not known at this time.
References: Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals 2005,
CDC/National Center for Environmental Health/Environmental Health Laboratory
http ://www. cdc.gov/nchs/about/nhanes
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered Species
Bulletin (PART efficiency)
Performance Database: The Bulletins Live! application is enabled by a multi-user relational
database system that maintains a permanent archive with dates of the draft and final content for
each endangered species protection Bulletin that is created or updated in the system. When the
Bulletins Live! application is made available to the public, EPA will take over the complete
Bulletin production process, which is currently carried out by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) staff through an Interagency Agreement (see below). Additionally, tracking and
summary reporting of all endangered species mitigation actions including the time between
which a decision is made to issue a Bulletin and its availability to the public will be made
available as a part of the OPP "PRISM" information system that is planned for development in
FY 2007. This system will track the staff working on mitigation development and bulletin
production, and the time spent on these activities, allowing for a calculation of the cost per
bulletin issued with Bulletins Live!
Data Source: The data necessary to track progress towards the targets for this measure are
currently being collected by EPA. The Bulletins are being developed for EPA by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Cartography and Publishing Program under an Interagency
Agreement (IAG) with OPP. The data will be collected annually through the end-of-year report
121
-------
under the Interagency Agreement (TAG). The baseline year will be 2004 cost and time averages
($4000.00 and 100 hours per Endangered Species Bulletin production or update).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: These Bulletins are a critical mechanism for ensuring
protection of endangered and threatened species from pesticide applications Bulletins are legally
enforceable extensions to pesticide labels that include geographically specific use limitations for
the protection of endangered species. The faster the Bulletins can be developed, the earlier the
protections are available to endangered and threatened species. Similarly, the less it costs to
produce the Bulletins, the more Bulletins can be produced within available budget and the
greater the impact on saving endangered and threatened species.
This measure is calculated as follows:
100 - [(Sum of the costs to produce or update Endangered Species Bulletins in current 12
month period/number of bulletins produced or updated in the same 12 month
period)/(Sum of the costs to produce or update Endangered Species Bulletins in previous
12 month period) X 100] This is intended to be a measure that captures improvements in
current year cost per bulletin vs. previous year cost per bulletin.
100 - [(Sum of the time in hours to produce or update Endangered Species Bulletins in
current 12 month period/number of bulletins produced or updated in the same 12 month
period)/(Sum of the time in hours to produce or update Endangered Species Bulletins in
previous 12 month period/number of bulletins produced or updated in the previous 12
month period) X 100]
QA/QC Procedures: EPA adheres to its approved Quality Management Plan to ensure the
overall quality of data in the Bulletins Live! system. Bulletins pass through a multi-level quality
control and review process before being released to the public. After the initial Bulletin is
created by trained staff in the Endangered Species Protection Program, the draft is automatically
routed in the system to a senior staff member who reviews the information in the Bulletin as a
quality control check. After this Agency review, Bulletins are then subject to review and
comment by Regional and State regulatory partners responsible for different aspects of the field
implementation program and Bulletin enforcement.
Data Quality Reviews: Data quality reviews for the Bulletins themselves are ongoing through
the QA/QC methodology described above. Data quality reviews for components of the measure
(time per bulletin and cost per bulletin) will be carried out by the Project Officers who manage
the Bulletins Live! and PRISM systems.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The web-based Bulletins Live! system will facilitate the
expedited production and delivery of endangered species protection Bulletins as compared to the
2004 baseline.
122
-------
References:
Endangered Species Protection Program website and Bulletins Live!: http://www.epa.gov/espp;
QMP: Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pesticides Program, February 2006;
Endangered Species Act.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Cost per acre using reduced risk pest management practices compared to the grant
and/or contract funds expended on environmental stewardship (PART efficiency)
Performance Database: Strategic Agricultural Initiative (SAI) database contains the SAI grants
funds and acreage data. We are going to track the number of acres, by particular crop, under
reduced risk pest management that were part of a grant and/or contract. This database is currently
on the web site of our cooperator, the American Farmland Trust. We are working to migrate this
database to the EPA web site and then add the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program
(PESP) data. The PESP data are those reported to EPA in grant reports. We look at the adoption
rate of reduced risk pesticides and compare it to the cost of the grant. The data then are the acres
impacted by the grant verses the amount of money spent.
Data Source: Reports from grantees and contractors will be used as well as available databases
to track the adoption of safer pest management practices. Such data sources include the USDA
National Agricultural Statistics Service's surveys, Doane Marketing Research data, and pesticide
usage records provided by user groups. Agricultural pesticide user groups who are members of
PESP frequently report their use of safer pest management practices as part of their annual
reports
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Each grantee or contractor is required to provide
reports on their project including the success of adoption of safer pest management practices.
For SAI grants, the SAI Coordinator in each of the 10 EPA Regional Offices enters the results
from the SAI grants into the SAI database. The SAI Coordinator at EPA Headquarters
encourages the Regional Coordinators to do this in a timely fashion. EPA Headquarters' Project
Officer of the PESP grant serves the same function, making sure interim and final reports are
provided to EPA without delay. EPA will track the adoption of new practices using publicly and
commercially available databases, such as those described above. At times, data also are
available on the adoption of a particular biopesticide or other reduced risk pesticide from the
registrant of that product or from a user group that is adopting the new technology. This data can
be very useful in tracking adoption in the early stages or in cases where little data is available,
such as for minor crops. Data supplied by registrants can be compared to information supplied to
EPA under Section 7 of FIFRA to identify major errors, but it would be hard to identify minor
errors or flaws in the data.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA QA/QC procedures are followed for each grant and/or contract
where environmental data is being collected. Part of the Agency's Quality Management Plan
requires that grantees and/or contractors have a QA/QC program in place before the
grant/contract is awarded. A staff member, typically the project officer for the grant or contract,
123
-------
typically often conducts onsite visits every year to ensure QA/QC procedures is being followed.
Typically, field trials and demonstrations are visited by the Regional SAI Coordinators or the
EPA grantee for PESP work. Data from other internal and external sources, where available,
will be used to determine the validity of the information provided by registrants and grower
groups.
Data Quality Reviews: Staff and management of the Environmental Stewardship Branch and
the Regional SAI Coordinators will perform data quality reviews under the leadership of
program QA/QC officers.
Data Limitations: Major pesticide usage surveys will miss minor usages. Voluntary reporting
by grantees and grower groups on the use of their reduced risk pest management practices
introduces more error/bias than if a statistically valid sample were taken. However, there aren't
funds for this kind of sample survey.
Error Estimate: Error estimates for established databases such as Doane and NASS surveys are
documented by these organizations in their survey reports. Audits of grants is intended to reduce
errors, but best estimates may be relied upon when statistically valid samples are not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA will improve the existing SAI database by including
PESP data or will create a comparable database to track the PESP data.
References: http://www.epa.gov/oppbppdl/PESP/ and
http ://www. aftresearch.org/sai/collaborations
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Register reduced risk pesticides including biopesticides (annual measure)
• Number of new (active ingredients) conventional pesticides registered (New
Chemicals)(annual measure)
• Number of conventional new uses registered (New Uses)(annual measure)
• Percent reduction in review time for registration of conventional pesticides (PART
efficiency measure)
• Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Emergency Exemption Decisions
• Reduce registration decision times for reduced risk chemicals
Performance Database: The OPPIN (Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network)
consolidates various pesticides program databases. It is maintained by the EPA and tracks
regulatory data submissions and studies, organized by scientific discipline, which are submitted
by the registrant in support of a pesticide's registration. In addition to tracking decisions in
OPPIN, manual counts are also maintained by the office on the registrations of reduced risk
pesticides. Results for reduced risk pesticides, new active conventional ingredients, and new
uses have been reported since 1996. The results are calculated on a fiscal year (FY) basis. For
antimicrobial new uses, results have been reported since FY 2004 on a FY basis. Both S18
timeliness and reduced risk decision times were reported on a FY basis for the first time in FY
2005.
124
-------
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, and as long as
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 standards. 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.
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.
125
-------
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Cumulative percent of Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) completed
(PART measure)
• Number of Product Reregistration decisions issued (annual measure)
• Reduction in time required to issue Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (PART
efficiency 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. Reduction in cost per RED
will be reported in FY 2008.
For this measure, the number of FTEs is the surrogate for cost. The baseline is 11.5 FTEs per
reregi strati on decision completed. The measure is derived by taking the total FTE devoted to
reregi strati on activities, as reported in OPP's Time Accounting Information System (TAIS),
divided by the number of reregi strati on decisions completed.
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 standards. 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.
126
-------
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 2008 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.
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.
127
-------
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Cumulative number of chemicals with proposed, interim and/or final values for
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs). (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
128
-------
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. AEGLs represent threshold exposure
limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 min to 8
h. Three levels—AEGL_1, AEGL_2, and AEGL_3—are developed for each of five exposure
periods (10 min, 30 min, 1 h, 4 h, and 8 h) and are distinguished by varying degrees of severity
of toxic effects (detection, disability, and death respectively). They provide a high degree of
flexibility for their use in chemical emergency response, planning, and prevention for accidental
or terrorist releases of chemicals. The AEGL Program pools the resources of US and
international stakeholders with needs for this information in a cost effective program which
develops one set of numbers for use by all stakeholders (DOD, DOT, DOE, States, The
Netherlands and others in the international community).
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.
AEGL Program website at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
129
-------
• Percent reduction from prior year in total EPA cost per chemical for which
Proposed AEGL value sets are developed (annual 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.
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.
130
-------
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
used to develop AEGL values. This new database should enhance the efficiency of AEGL
development.
References: Please see www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
» Number of cases of children aged 1-5 years with elevated blood lead levels (> or = 10
ug/dL) (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 2003-2004, released in June 2006. 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 June 2006, and is available at the web site
131
-------
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. The next National Exposure report is expected in mid
2007.
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
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/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/anal ytical_guidelines.htm.
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/nhanes.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 approaches are addressed
in the analytical guidelines provided at the NHANES web site
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/anal ytical_guidelines.htm.
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
132
-------
recent estimate of the number of children with elevated blood lead levels,
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm; 4) NHANES Analytical
Guidelines, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-
2004/anal ytical_guidelines.htm.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Annual percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that
require less than 40 days of EPA effort to process (PART efficiency 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/pubs/traincert.htm.
Documentation for the FLPP database is maintained internally at EPA and is available upon
request.
133
-------
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.
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/pubs/traincert.htm.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Reduction in the current year production-adjusted risk-based score of releases and
transfers of toxic chemicals (PART measure)
Performance Database: The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (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,
134
-------
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
regulatory agencies. Over the course of its development, RSEI has been the subject of three
reviews by EPA's Science Advisory Board. 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 (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.
135
-------
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.
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
Model (RSEI) Home Page. Internet: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
Model, Peer Reviews. Internet: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/pubs/faqs.html
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, RSEI Methodology Document. Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/method2004.pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, RSEI User's Manual. Internet:
http ://www. epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/users_manual .pdf
U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, RSEI Fact Sheet,. Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/factsheet_v2-l.pdf
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent of chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose
unreasonable risks to workers, consumers or environment (annual 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;
136
-------
• 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's current PMN review practices
would have 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's current PMN review practices would have 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, whether
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 and whether current PMN Review
practices would have detected and prevented that risk.
137
-------
The databases used and the information retrieved are directly applicable to this measurement and
therefore suitable for measurement purposes.
QA/QC Procedures: OPPT has in place a signed Quality Management Plan ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003) and will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort.
Data Quality Reviews: This is a new performance measure and, therefore, there is no developed
track record of review and correction. However, appropriate oversight of the measurement
process will be provided. Information developed in the course of measurement will be presented
to senior management within OPPT to address potential concerns related to technical outcomes
and to provide quality oversight. In addition, the National Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Advisory Council (NPPTAC), which consists of external experts providing independent review
and direction to OPPT, has provided comment on this measure.
Data Limitations: There are some limitations of EPA's review which result from differences in
the quality and completeness of 8(e) data provided by industry; for example, OPPT cannot
evaluate submissions that do not contain adequate information on chemical identity. The review
is also affected in some cases by a lack of available electronic information. In particular the pre-
1996 PMN cases are only retrievable in hard copy and may have to be requested from the
Federal Document Storage Center. This may introduce some delays to the review process.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. This measure does not require inferences from statistical
samples and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error. OPPT will review all 8(e)
submissions received in the year with corresponding previously-submitted new chemical review
data, and not a sample of such submissions.
New/Improved Data or Systems: OPPT is currently developing an integrated, electronic
system that will provide real time access to prospective PMN review.
References: OPPT New Chemicals Program
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/, TSCA Section 8(e) - Substantial Risk
"Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent change from prior year in cost savings due to new chemical pre-screening
(annual 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:
138
-------
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
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 resulting from 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:
139
-------
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-
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 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 resulting from
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
140
-------
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.
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. Information on the Sustainable
Futures Initiative is available at
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/sustainablefutures.htm.
FY 2008 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 (annual measure)
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
141
-------
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
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: N/A
References: None
FY 2008 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, (annual
measure)
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/
142
-------
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Number of risk management plan audits completed
Performance Database: There is no database for this measure.
Data Source: OSWER's Office of Emergency Management implements the Risk Management
Program under Clean Air Act section 112(r). Facilities are required to prepare Risk Management
Plans (RMPs) and submit them to EPA. In turn, HQ provides appropriate data to each Region
and delegated State so that they have the RMP data for their geographical area. The Regions and
delegated States conduct audits. About ten States have received delegation to operate the RMP
program. These delegated States report audit numbers to the appropriate EPA Regional office so
it can maintain composite information on RMP audits.
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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Number of countries completing phase out of leaded gasoline
143
-------
• Number of countries introducing low sulfur in fuels
Performance Database: UNEP Partnership Clearinghouse; This performance measure tracks
the number of countries that have phased out lead in gasoline. EPA works with the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and other partners in the global Partnership for Clean
Fuels and Vehicles to document the phase out of leaded gasoline and the reduction of sulfur
levels in fuels worldwide. UNEP manages the Partnership Clearinghouse, which tracks the status
of lead phase-out efforts and the status of sulfur reduction efforts in each country. The
Partnership Clearinghouse also documents and verifies each country's implementation of lead
phase out and sulfur reduction programs. The Partnership's data on lead phase-out can be found
on the Partnership website at: http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htmtfleaded. The
Partnership's data on sulfur levels in fuels, by country, can be found on the Partnership website
at: http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htmtfsulphur
Data Source: The United Nations Environment Programme serves as the Clearinghouse for the
Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles and maintains a database of the status of country lead-
phase out. Information from the database is posted on the Partnership website and updated
periodically by UNEP - at least every 6 months. UNEP collects the data from public and
private sector partners and contacts government and industry experts in each country for
verification before the data are posted. This data collection and cross-checking provide the best
currently available information on country lead phase-out status and levels of sulfur.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: There is currently no available database on
international leaded gasoline sales data or market penetration of alternative fuels, nor is there any
international database on sulfur levels in fuels. Because of this gap, the Partnership made the
decision to track the number of countries that have phased out lead and reduced sulfur because
the data are more easily verifiable.
QA/QC Procedures: Experts at the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles verify the
information in the Partnership Clearinghouse by contacting key people from industry and
government within each country.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: There currently is no available database on leaded gasoline sales data or
market penetration of alternative fuels. The Partnership made the decision to track the number of
countries that have phased out lead and reduced sulfur in fuels, because the data are more easily
verifiable. Fuel changes and lead phase- out are implemented in different ways in different
countries, mostly by legislation. But having the legislation in place does not mean that lead has
been eliminated from gasoline. Many countries have set dates for lead phase-out and sulfur
reduction; however the Partnership tracks actual progress toward implementation.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
144
-------
References: For additional information on the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles, see the
Partnership website at http://www.unep.org/PCFV
For more information concerning the database for phase-out of leaded gasoline, see
http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htm#leaded
For additional information on sulfur levels, see
http://www.unep.org/PCFV/Data/data.htm#sulphur
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2008 Per for ma nee Measures:
• Number of Brownfields properties assessed [PART performance]
• Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities
• Amount of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields properties.
[PART performance]
• Acres of Brownfields properties made ready for reuse [PART performance]
Performance Database: The Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System
(ACRES) tracks the performance information for the above measures.
Key fields related to performance measures include, but are not limited to:
Property Acreage
Assessment Completion Date
Cleanup Required
Cleanup Completion Date
Funding Leveraged
Jobs Leveraged
Number of Participants Completing Training
Number of Participants Obtaining Employment
Performance measure data is tracked by fiscal year and will not be available for the FY 08 PAR;
data will be available for the FY 09 PAR.
Data Source: Data are extracted from quarterly reports and property profile forms
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/rptforms.htm) 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 recipients report
performance data in quarterly reports and property profile forms. Data are reviewed by Regional
EPA grant managers to verify activities and accomplishments. Given the reporting cycle and the
data entry/QA period, there is typically a six month data lag for ACRES data.
145
-------
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 grant managers for accuracy and to ensure appropriate interpretation of
performance measure definitions. Reports are produced monthly with detailed data trends
analysis.
Data Quality Reviews: No external reviews
Data Limitations: All data provided voluntarily by grantees.
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Brownfields Program updated the Property Profile Form
in FY 2006 to improve data collection and to expand the community of grantees completing the
form. The Program anticipates launching an online reporting form in FY 2007; this system will
be phased in over the next several years.
References: For more information on the Brownfields program, see Reusing Land and
Restoring Hope: A Report to Stakeholders from the US EPA Brownfields Program
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/news/stake_report.htm); assessment demonstration pilots and
grants (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/assessment_grants.htm); cleanup and revolving loan
fund pilots and grants (http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/rlflst.htm); job training pilots and grants
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/job.htm); and cleanup grants
(http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/cleanup_grants.htm).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
146
-------
• Cumulative number of communities with potential environmental justice concerns
that achieve significant measurable environmental and/or public health
improvement through collaborative problem-solving strategies.
Performance Database: The Office of Environmental Justice is developing a database to
collect the data for this measure.
Data Source: Semi-annual reports provided by recipients of EPA cooperative agreements in
the amount of $100,000 over a three year project period. These reports are collected and
analyzed by the individual technical advisors of each of the projects. The data reported will be
analyzed by EPA to determine measurable improvements which result from the projects. These
projects vary from reductions in solid waste to reductions in exposure to lead paint. In addition
to the semi-annual reporting requirements for the individual projects, the office will also conduct
annual evaluations of each of the projects to validate results in the semi-annual reports.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The method to be used to analyze and review the
information will depend on the type of project but usually the baseline measures available at the
time the project begins will be the starting point; changes to the baseline will be the measures of
improvement in environmental and/or public health. The communities with environmental
justice issues are defined as those impacted disproportionately by high and adverse exposure to
environmental hazards.
QA/QC Procedures: Office of Environmental Justice Quality Management Plan, approved
August 5, 2002. To ensure data accuracy and control, the following administrative controls are
in place: (1) Report specifications for each project detailing how reported data are collected and
calculated, and (2) Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) for projects involving the collection
of primary or secondary environmental data. Not all projects involve the collection of primary or
secondary environmental data, however, and do not require a QAPP. In those cases, EPA relies
fully on the project's reporting requirements and evaluation studies to construct the baselines and
trends.
Data Quality Review: The Office of Environmental Justice performs an annual review of each
project 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 Environmental Justice Quality Management Plan, approved August 5,
2002.
147
-------
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Additional people served per million dollars (US and Mexico federal expenditures)
• Number of additional homes provided adequate safe drinking water in the Mexican
border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003
• Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater sanitation in the
Mexican border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003
Performance Database: No formal EPA database. Performance is tracked and reported
quarterly by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American
Development Bank (NADBank). Data fields are population served by and homes connected to
potable water and wastewater collection and treatment systems.
Data Source: Data sources include U.S. population figures from the 2000 U.S. Census, data on
U.S. and Mexican populations served and homes connected by "certified" water/wastewater
treatment improvements from the BECC and data on projects funded from the NADBank.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Summation of population from BECC and NADBank.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA Headquarters is responsible for evaluation of reports from BECC and
NADBank on drinking water and wastewater sanitation projects. Regional representatives attend
meetings of the certifying and financing entities for border projects (BECC and NADBank) and
conduct site visits of projects underway to ensure the accuracy of information reported.
Data Quality Reviews: Regional representatives attend meetings of the certifying and financing
entities for border projects (BECC and NADBank) and conduct site visits of projects underway
to ensure the accuracy of information reported.
Data Limitations: None.
Error Estimate: The error estimate is the same rate accepted by the U.S. Census.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None.
References:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1990). Institute National de Estadistica, Geografiay Informatica, Aguascalientes,
Total Population by State (1990).
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), Cd Juarez, Chih, and North American
Development Bank (NADBank), (San Antonio, TX, 2002).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Clean-up five waste sites (two abandoned scrap tire sites and three abandoned
hazardous waste sites) in the United-States-Mexico border region.
148
-------
Performance Database: The measure tracks the number of scrap tire piles and hazardous waste
sites cleaned up in the U.S.-Mexico border region. To accomplish this, the EPA works in
collaboration with the Mexican federal and state governments, border States, border tribes, local
communities, NGOs, the private sector and others.
In the U.S., the EPA Office of International Affairs (OIA) coordinates the Border 2012 program
and manages the Border 2012 Project Database, which contains information/data related to
project implementation and progress made as submitted by project officers. Data include the
name and location of hazardous waste sites, tire piles, plans and timelines for clean up, number
of waste tires in the piles, number of tires removed/cleaned up, and dates for project start and
end.
Indicator: Estimated Abandoned Waste Tire Piles in the Border Region
Outcome*: Site Percent Removed Original Number of Tires
El Centinella 77% 1,200,000
Ciudad Juarez 20% 1,000,000
*As of December 2005
Data Source: The data on hazardous sites and scrap tire clean up comes from local government
and contractors hired to conduct the clean up as submitted to SEMARNAT (Mexico), and EPA
and as reported on the Indicators Report 2005.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: In cooperation with the various entities operating
under the Border 2012 program, the Border Indicators Task Force (BITF) selects and develops
environmental and performance indicators to communicate important information about the
border region and to evaluate progress towards meeting Program goals and objectives. Each of
the indicators presented in the 2005 report is classified according to the Driving Forces-
Pressures-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) Framework. DPSIR is based on the idea that Driving
Forces such as socio-economic factors lead to natural or human-induced Pressures, which lead to
a State, which generates Impacts (sub-divided into Exposure and Effect) that evoke Reponses.
The Response compartment feeds back into every other compartment, showing that interventions
can occur at each point along the causal spectrum. For more information see the Strategy for
Indicator Development (EPA 600/R-06/015 April 2006).
QA/QC Procedures:
Once the EPA receives information on the status of projects in a border community, EPA's
subject and program experts contact key sources in the border area to verify data.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations are: ^Inconsistencies in methods of data
collection, processing, etc., arising form work being done in a foreign location; 2) inaccuracies
due to imprecise measurement and recording stemming from tire size and state (whole or in
crumbs); and, 3) lags between data collection, reporting, and updating.
149
-------
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Border 2012 Project Database: EPA-OIA-U.S.-Mexico Team
Program Framework: Border 2012: U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program - EPA-160-R-03-001
State of the Border Region. Indicators Report 2005 - EPA-160-R-06-001
Border 2012 Program Website: http://www.epa.gov/border 20127
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Reduce the mean maternal blood levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
chlordane in indigenous populations in the Arctic
Performance Database: Two databases provide the baseline data in support of this performance
measure, which tracks the response of human Arctic populations to programmatic efforts to
reduce their exposure to priority Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) contamination in their
environment. Between 1998 and 2002 the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP)
of the Arctic Council, with the participation of all eight Arctic nations, collected data on
persistent organic pollutants and human health impacts in the Arctic Rim Region, including
spatial and temporal trends of maternal blood concentrations of PCBs and chlordane in
indigenous peoples.
Also between 1998 and 2002, an additional study was carried out on "Persistent Toxic
Substances, Food Security and Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North", which assisted AMAP
to eliminate data gaps with respect to geographical scope. This study, issued in 2004, was a
combined effort of the Global Environment Facility, UNEP, AMAP, and the Russian
Association of the Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East.
Both studies documented the fact that Persistent Toxic Substances (PTS) such as PCBs and
chlordane are transported to, and accumulate in, the Arctic Region. Data continue to be collected
under the AMAP Program and evaluated for health impacts by the AMAP Human Health
Experts Group consisting of representatives from all eight Arctic countries.
Both databases are maintained by the AMAP Secretariat in Oslo, Norway.
AMAP Assessment Reports are available at: www.amap.no
Persistent Toxic Substances, Food Security and Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North Report
is available at: www.amap.no7Resources7PTS_project.htm
Data Source: The Arctic Council, consisting of eight Arctic nations and Permanent Participants
of Indigenous Peoples, participate in the collection, analysis, evaluation and reporting of results
on priority pollutants such as PCBs and chlordane. The data reports are posted on the Artie
Council website and shared with the Barents Euro-Arctic Council, the Nordic Council of
Ministers, the United Nations Environment Program and others. EPA and other U.S. Federal
150
-------
Agencies such as NOAA and NIH participate in the collection and interpretation of the data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Analytical and statistical methods applied to the
analysis and interpretation of data, were those methods approved by the European Union and the
methods developed by the NIH, CDC and EPA. A standard analytical method used in these
studies is high pressure liquid chromatography with electron capture. Statistical methods include
regression analysis to look for association of health outcomes between the baby and the mothers
and individual contaminants and mixtures of contaminants.
Maternal blood serum concentrations of PCBs and chlordane in indigenous peoples of the Arctic
were chosen because, in general, the most devastating impacts of exposure to these POPs are
seen in infants exposed to them in utero or via their mother's milk. Additionally, there are no
local manufacturing facilities or large point sources of these toxics; indigenous peoples have a
limited subsistence diet of fish and mammals that bioaccumulate PCBs and chlordane through
transboundary transfer; and human health impacts can be directly correlated to the presence of
these toxic compounds. Maternal blood serum was selected as the reference material since it is
sensitive to changes in environmental concentrations, has a residence time of many years, and is
transported through the umbilical cord blood from mother to fetus, providing clear relationship
between contaminant levels and their impact on human health.
QA/QC Procedures: In the PTS study, a Regional Monitoring Center was selected by the
project Steering Committee to perform analyses using international methodologies and strict
QA/QC procedures. The AMAP study used recognized Data Centers such as the University of
Alaska- Fairbanks, and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. These Data
Centers were already operating using internationally-accepted QA/QC practices.
Data Quality Reviews: In the Arctic Environmental Assessment Reports of AMAP and PTS,
over 140 contributing experts and 14 international organizations participated in a series of expert
groups to review analytical data, data collection techniques, interpretation of results and health
impacts. These expert groups were instrumental in identifying data gaps and weaknesses in the
original AMAP assessments that were concurrently addressed by the PTS study. Such gaps
included indigenous populations in remote regions of Russia, high Arctic Russian cities which
originally did not participated in the AMAP studies, and military populations.
Data Limitations: The remote locations and limited populations of women of child-bearing age
are a primary challenge. This is being addressed by a new Arctic Council Arctic Contaminants
Action Program called the "Indigenous Peoples Community Action Initiative". Under this
initiative, local sources of contamination, such as small amounts of improperly stored obsolete
pesticides and PCBs, are identified and removed from the community. Environmental
educational programs are also implemented, particularly for women of child-bearing age and
children, on how to identify and avoid these toxic contaminants. The time interval between data
collection (blood serum) and posting on the AMAP database is approximately five months.
There is very little variability in the sample collection techniques because the same doctors from
the Northwest Public Health Research Center and Alaska Human Health Consortium are
performing the data collection.
151
-------
Error Estimate: Analytical procedures allow measurements in fractions of ug/1. The error
bound for the performance estimate is +/- 5%.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Expanded database development is being performed under
the new "Indigenous Peoples Community Action Initiative" (see "Data Limitations" above)
References:
AMAP, 2003. AMAP Assessment 2002: Human Health in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and
Assesment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway.
(http://www.amap.no/Assessment/ScientificBackground.htm)
Persistent Toxics Substances, Food Security and Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North: Final
Report, Oslo 2004. (http://www.amap.no/Resources/PTS_project.htm)
Contaminants in Alaska - - Is America's Arctic at Risk? Alaska Native Science Commission,
Interagency Collaborative Paper, September 2000
Northern Contaminants Program-Canada (http:// www.inac.gc.ca/ncp/abt/bro_e.html
Bertazzi, P. A., Industrial Disease Standards Panel Report, Ontario Canada, 1987
Dallaire et. Al., 2002. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 110, Number 8, August 2002.
Stewart P, Darvill T, Lonky E, Reihman J, Pagano J, and Bush B. 1999. Assessment of prenatal
exposure of PCBs from maternal consumption of Great Lakes fish: an analysis of PCB pattern
and concentration. Environ Res 80(Suppl 2):87-96.
Yakushiji, T., Watanabe, I, Kuwabara, K., Tanaka, R., Kashimoto, T., Kunita, N., Kara, I. Rate
of decrease and half-life of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the blood of mothers and their
children occcupationally exposed to PCBs. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology (1984). vol.13, p.341-345.
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Acres of habitat protected or restored in National Estuary Program (NEP) study areas
[Ocean and Coastal PART measure]
• Acres of coastal habitat, including tidal wetlands, dunes, riparian buffers, and
freshwater wetlands restore or protected [Long Island Sound]
• 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
152
-------
performance is habitat acreage. Annual results have been reported since 2000 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.
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.
EPA actions are consistent with data quality and management policies.
153
-------
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews conducted yet.
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: NEPs provide 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—
NEPORT— has been developed for the NEPs= use that will assist in tracking habitat projects.
EPA has taken steps to align NEPORT data fields with those of the National Estuarine
Restoration Inventory (NERI) and with the President's Wetlands Initiative, developed for
interagency use.
References: Aggregate national and regional data for this measurement, as well as data
submitted by the individual National Estuary Programs, is displayed numerically, graphically,
and by habitat type in the Performance Indicators Visualization and Outreach Tool (PIVOT).
PIVOT data are publicly available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/
intro.htm. The Office of Water Quality Management Plan (July 2001) is available on the Intranet
at http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/infopolicy.html.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• By 2008, working with partners, achieve a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands per
year with additional focus on biological and functional measures and assessment of
wetland condition.
Performance Database: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produces information on the type
and extent of the Nation's wetlands and deepwater habitats. The Emergency Wetland Resources
Act of 1986 requires the Service to conduct status and trend studies of the Nation's wetlands, and
report the results to Congress each decade.. To date the Fish and Wildlife Service has produced
four such documents. On Earth Day 2004, President Bush announced a wetlands initiative that
established a federal policy beyond "no net loss" of wetlands. As part of that same Earth Day
message, the President directed the Service to accelerate the completion of the status and trends
and to undertake this study at more frequent intervals. This information is used by Federal,
State, and local agencies, academic institutions, U.S. Congress, and the private sector.
154
-------
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 report16 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 1998 to 2004. In calendar year 1997, there were an estimated 105.5
million acres of wetlands in the conterminous United States. In calendar year 2004 107.7 million
acres of wetlands were estimated. Of this total, approximately 102.4 million acres (95 percent)
are freshwater wetlands and 5.3 million acres (5 percent) are saltwater wetlands. Although the
report shows that overall gains in wetland acres exceeded overall losses from 1998 through 2004
(approximately 32,000 acres/yr), this gain is primarily attributable to an increase in unvegetated
freshwater ponds, some of which (such as aquaculture ponds) may not function as wetlands and
others of which may have varying functional value. The Report also notes the following trends
in other wetland categories: freshwater vegetated wetlands declined by 0.5%, a smaller rate of
loss than in preceding years; and estuarine vegetated wetlands declined by 0.7%, an increased
rate of loss from the preceding years. The Status and Trends Report does not assess the quality
or condition of wetlands. EPA will continue working with FWS and other federal agencies to
refine the methodology used in preparing future reports, to subdivide current wetland categories,
to provide further clarity and information on the types of wetlands that are found on the
landscape and to describe the functions and values they provide. In addition EPA is preparing to
undertake a National wetland condition study that is scheduled for completion in 2013.
Data Source: The National Status and Trends Report is developed and published by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. This is the only Federal study that provides statistically valid
estimates with a published standard error for all wetlands in the conterminous United States.
Aerial imagery is the primary data source, and it is used with reliable collateral data such as
topographic maps, coastal navigation charts, published soil surveys, published wetland maps,
and State, local or regional studies. A random number of sites are also field verified. All
photography is cataloged, numbered, tagged, and traced in a database management system.
For each plot, aerial imagery is interpreted and annotated in accordance with procedures
published by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The results are compared with previous era imagery,
and any changes recorded. The differences between the data sets are analyzed and a statistical
estimate of the change is produced.
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.
16 Dahl, I.E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, B.C. 112pp.
155
-------
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 4,682 random sample plots. The plots were examined with the use of
remote sensed data in combination with field work. Estimates of change in wetlands were made
over a specific time period.
QA/QC Procedures: The Service has developed and implemented quality assurance measures
that provide appropriate methods to take field measurements, ensure sample integrity and
provide oversight of analyses, which includes reporting of procedural and statistical confidence
levels. The objective was to produce comprehensive, statistically valid acreage estimate of the
Nation's wetlands. Because of the sample-based approach, various quality control and quality
assurance measures were built into the data collection, review, analysis, and reporting stages.
This includes field verification of the plots. Six Federal agencies assist with field verification
work.
Data Quality Reviews: Not Applicable
Data Limitations: Certain habitats were excluded because of the limitations of aerial imagery
as the primary data source to detect wetlands. This was consistent with previous wetland status
and trends studies conducted by FWS.
Error Estimate: Estimated procedural error ranged from 4 to 6 percent of the true values when
all quality assurance measures have been completed. Procedural error was related to the ability
to accurately recognize and classify wetlands both from multiple sources of imagery and on the
ground evaluations. Types of procedural errors were missed wetlands, inclusion of upland as
wetland, misclassification of wetlands, or misinterpretation of data collection protocols. The
amount of procedural error is usually a function of the quality of the data collection conventions;
the number, variability, training and experience of data collection personnel; and the rigor of any
quality control or quality assurance measures.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Advances in computerized cartography were used to improve
data quality and geospatial integrity. Newer technology allowed the generation of existing
digital plot files at any scale to overlay directly over an image base.
References:
http://wetlands.fws.gov/index.html
http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html
http://wetlands.fws.gov/Pubs Reports/publi.htm
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
156
-------
• 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
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.
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;
157
-------
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). The Corps is partnering with EPA to ensure that the
version of ORM that is ultimately deployed will adequately track wetlands and other aquatic
resource losses and mitigation. ORM 1.0 has already been deployed in approximately half of the
Corps' 38 districts. The Corps expects to deploy ORM 1.0 in the remaining districts in Fall
2006. Also during Fall 2006, Corps plans to beta test ORM 2.0 in selected Districts before
upgrading all Districts to ORM 2.0 by the first quarter of 2007. This should enable national
reporting in early 2008. Unlike ORM 1.0, ORM 2.0 will have expanded GIS capabilities and
additional mandatory data fields for impact and mitigation data. EPA, other federal and state
agencies, as well as the public will also have expanded access to data in ORM 2.0 via a system
of web-services and web-mapping tools.
ORM 2.0 is being designed to provide improved tracking regarding:
• Type of impacts (i.e., work type)
• Type, quantity and location of aquatic resources impacted (Using Cowardin classification
system)
• Type, quantity and location of aquatic resource mitigation (Using Cowardin classification
system)
• Type and quantity of mitigation by method (i.e., restoration, creation, enhancement, or
preservation)
• Differentiating stream mitigation (in linear feet) from wetlands mitigation (in acres)
• Spacial tracking via 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
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic ecosystems so that overall ecosystem health
of the Great Lakes is improved
158
-------
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 generally 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
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
Area of Concern Sediment Contamination (This component is not included in SOLEC.
Information from reports of contaminated sediment remediation is collected by
USEPA-GLNPO and is used by GLNPO to evaluate the contaminated sediment
index component of this Index.)
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, benthic health, fish tissue contamination, beach closures, drinking
water quality, and air toxics deposition), and an indicator for Area of Concern (AOC) sediment
contamination. Each component of the Index is based on a 1 to 5 rating system, where 1 is poor
and 5 is good. Authors use best professional judgment to assess the overall status of the
ecosystem component in relation to established endpoints or ecosystem objectives, when
159
-------
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, other than the AOC sediment contamination component, 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." Contaminated
sediment remediation information is collected in conformance with GLNPO's Great Lakes
r\
Sediment Remediation Project Summary Support QAPP (see reference #2 below).
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.
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
160
-------
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." 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: 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. Documentation regarding SOLEC is available on the Internet and from GLNPO4 (see
reference # 4 below).
References:
1. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
2. "Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project Summary Support QAPP." March 2006.
Unpublished - in USEPA GLNPO files.
3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. " Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
4. a. "State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004 QAPP." Unpublished. Prepared as part
of Cooperative Agreement between USEPA and Environment Canada.
b. 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.
c. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, EPA 905-R-03-004. 2003. Available on CD
and online at .
d. 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,
161
-------
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
e. Canada and the United States. "State of the Great Lakes 2005." Environment Canada,
Burlington, Ontario(Cat No. Enl61-3/0-2005E-PDF) and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chicago (EPA 905-R-06-001), 2006 Available online at
f. 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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Long-term average concentration trends of PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye will
decline.
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 FY08, the database will
contain QA/QCed field data from fish collected in 2006 and all QA/QCed analytical data for fish
collected between 1972 and 2005. A new grantee was selected for this program in 2005, thus
delaying the release of analytical data collected in 2004 and 2005 until 2007. Data collected in
2006 is expected to be able to be used for reporting in 2008. 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.)
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
162
-------
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 400 - 500 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 quality 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.
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.
163
-------
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 have an 80% probability to detect a 10% change per year, over three to four sampling
periods, at the 95% confidence level. An official outside peer review of these data is tentatively
scheduled for spring of 2007 to finalize the data quality objective for Element 1 and to create a data
quality objective for Element 2.
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:
Supporting Program Documentation: All journal publications relevant to the Great Lakes Fish
Monitoring Program, final project reports, and quality documentation can be found at the
GLFMP website, http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fish.html.
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.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Long term 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 2006 will be reported in 2008. Data are reported on a
calendar year basis the second year after collection.
Data Source: GLNPO and Environment Canada are the principal sources of the data for IADN.
Data also come through in-kind support and information sharing with other Federal agencies and
Canada. Only data from US stations in IADN are being used for this measure.
164
-------
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: There are five master IADN stations, one for each
lake, which are supplemented by satellite stations in other locations. The master stations are
located in remote areas and are meant to represent regional background levels. Concentrations
from the master stations are used for the performance measure. Concentrations from the satellite
stations in Chicago and Cleveland are also sometimes used to demonstrate the importance of
urban areas to atmospheric deposition to the Lakes. Air samples are collected for 24 hours using
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
officer 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. There are common performance standards for PCBs, organochlorine
pesticides, and PAHs. A common calibration standard for PCBs is now used. A jointly-funded
QA officer conducts laboratory and field audits, tracks QA statistics, and carries out special QA
165
-------
studies. As previously mentioned, data from all contributing agencies are quality-controlled
using a SAS-based system.
Data Limitations: The sampling design is dominated by rural sites that under-emphasize urban
contributions to deposition; thus, although the data are very useful for trends information, there is
less assurance of the representativeness of deposition to the whole lake. 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., 2004 data was reported in 2006); the Canadian data may not be available on this schedule;
consequently only US data is being used to report on this measure.
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, and recent intercomparison site data reflect this.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Joint data that has passed quality review will be available
from Canada's National Atmospheric Chemistry (NAtChem) Database and Analysis System,
which includes atmospheric data from many North American networks and is linked from
lADN's website at: The IADN
homepage can be found at < www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/ >. Copies of IADN data are now held in
U.S. and Canadian databases. 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.
166
-------
2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 1999. " Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
4. "Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network Quality Assurance Program Plan - Revision 1.1.
Environment Canada and USEPA. June 29, 2001. Unpublished - in USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
FY 2008 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. On
June 19, 2006, the Oswego River, NY AOC became the first U.S. AOC to be officially removed
from the list of U.S. AOCs. 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.htm#tablel) for existing and future AOCs. In 2001,
the U.S. Policy Committee, led by GLNPO and including State, Tribal, and Federal agencies
responsible for Great Lakes environmental issues, developed delisting guidelines for domestic
AOCs (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/delist.html) and for the binational AOCs shared by
Michigan and Ontario http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/delist.html - appendix 5).
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has an approved Quality Management System in place1 (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.
167
-------
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.
Data Limitations: None known.
Error Estimate: None.
New/Improved Data or Systems: NA
References:
GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system for 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 2008 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, thus, results from calendar year
2007 remediation will be reported in FY 2008.
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.
168
-------
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.
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.
169
-------
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
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 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percent of goal achieved for implementation of nitrogen reduction practices
(expressed as progress meeting the nitrogen reduction goal of 162.4 million pounds
reduced ) [PART annual output measure-Chesapeake Bay Program]
• Percent of goal achieved for implementation of phosphorus reduction practices
(expressed as progress meeting the phosphorus reduction goal of 14.36 million
pounds ) [PART annual output measure-Chesapeake Bay Program]
• Percent of goal achieved for implementation of sediment reduction practices
(expressed as progress meeting the sediment reduction goal of 1.69 million tons
reduced ) [PART annual output measure-Chesapeake Bay Program]
• Reduce point source nitrogen discharges to the Long Island Sound
• Total nitrogen reduction practices implementation achieved as a result of
agricultural best management practice implementation per million dollars to
implement agricultural BMPs [PART efficiency measure- Chesapeake Bay
Program]
Performance Database: Reducing Pollution Summary (Controlling Nitrogen, Phosphorus and
Sediment.) Implementation of point & nonpoint source nitrogen and phosphorus reduction
practices throughout the Bay watershed, expressed as % of reduction goal achieved. The nitrogen
goal is a 162.4 million pound reduction from 1986 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 175
million Ibs (based on long-term average hydrology simulations). The phosphorus goal is a 14.36
million pound reduction from FY1986 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 12.8 million Ibs
(based on long-term average hydrology simulations). Achieving the cap loads is expected to
result in achievement of the long-term restoration goals for submerged aquatic vegetation and
dissolved oxygen. Point source loads are monitored or estimated based on expert evaluation of
treatment processes. Nonpoint source loads are simulated based on reported implementation of
best management practices (BMPs) that reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. The
simulation removes annual hydrological variations in order to measure the effectiveness of BMP
170
-------
implementation and converts the numerous BMPs, with various pollution reduction efficiencies -
depending on type and location in the watershed - to a common currency of nitrogen and
phosphorus reduction.
Implementation of sediment reduction practices throughout the Bay watershed, expressed as %
of land-based sediment reduction goal achieved. The sediment reduction goal is a 1.69 million
ton reduction from FY 1986 levels to achieve an annual cap load of 4.15 million tons (based on
average hydrology simulations). Achieving this cap load is expected to result in achievement of
the long-term restoration goals for submerged aquatic vegetation and dissolved oxygen. Loads
are simulated based upon reported implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that
reduce sediment pollution. The simulation removes annual hydrological variations in order to
measure the effectiveness of BMP implementation and converts the numerous BMPs, with
various pollution reduction efficiencies - depending on type and location in the watershed - to a
common currency of sediment reduction.
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls. Data have been reported for
calendar years 1985, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and are expected on an annual basis
after 2005. Data are from Chesapeake Bay watershed portions of NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE,
and DC.
The FY 2008 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
calendar year 2007 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for calendar
year 2007 in September 2008
Data Source: Each jurisdiction (NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC) tracks and approves
annual point source effluent concentrations, flows data as well as non-point source BMP data. It
submits the data to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Contact Jeff Sweeney,
j sweeney@chesapeakebay.net.
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.
171
-------
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 crop 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 Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP).
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/1127.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/114.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/112.pdf
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
What are the model outputs?
The watershed model puts out daily flows and nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads for
input to the water quality model of the Chesapeake Bay. The daily loads are averaged over a 10-
year hydrologic period (1985-1994) to report an average annual load to the Bay. The effect of
flow is removed from the load calculations.
What are the model assumptions?
BMPs: Model assumptions are based on three conditions: knowledge, data availability and
computing power. The ability to alter what is used in the watershed model is a function of the
impact the change would have on calibration. In many cases there is new information, data or
methodologies that would improve the model, but changes are not possible because of the impact
on the current calibration.
172
-------
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 of
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 (2007)
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
Input 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 Kate Hopkins at hopkins.kate@epa.gov). Quality assurance program
plans are available in each state office.
Data Quality Reviews: All data are reviewed and approved by the individual jurisdictions (NY,
MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC) 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 are 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. Cost share programs include state and federal
grant programs that require a recipient match. State and local governments are aware that
173
-------
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 2007. 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 Reducing Pollution Summary (Controlling Nitrogen, Phosphorus
and Sediment) indicators are published at http://www.chesapeakebay.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/!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/. The indicator and data survey is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2006reports/IndicatorSurvey_Reducing_Pollution_032406.d
oc.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percent of point source nitrogen reduction goal of 49.9 million pounds achieved
[PART annual outcome measure- Chesapeake Bay Program]
• Percent of point source phosphorus reduction goal of 6.16 million pounds achieved
[PART annual outcome measure-Chesapeake Bay Program]
Performance Database: Point source nitrogen and phosphorus reductions are reported as % of
goal achieved and pounds. The goal for point source nitrogen reductions is 49.9 million pound
reduction from FY 1986 levels. The goal for point source phosphorus reductions is 6.16 million
pound reduction from FY 1986 levels. Point source nitrogen and phosphorus data is reported
based upon monitored results from the previous calendar year.
174
-------
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/127-data-2002.xls. Data have been collected
1985-2004 and are expected on an annual basis after 2004.
The FY 2008 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
2007 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2007 in September 2008.
Data Source: Each jurisdiction (NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC) tracks and approves
annual point source effluent concentrations and flow data. It submits the data to the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office. Contact; Ning Zhou, zhou.ning@epa.gov.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Point source loads are calculated from measured or
estimated values of effluent flows and concentrations. The Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 4.3
Watershed Model is the tool used to transform calculated point source discharge loads
(generally, from monitored flow and concentration data) to nutrient loads delivered to
Chesapeake Bay tidal waters.
Peer-reviewed methods are employed to estimate point source discharges where measured data
are not available. Refer to: "Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Application & Calculation of
Nutrient & Sediment Loadings - Appendix F: Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Point
Source Loads" at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/! 14.pdf; Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) "Standard Operating Procedures for Managing Point Source Data - Chesapeake Bay
Program" on file for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance Officer, Mary Ellen Ley,
mley@chesapeakebay.net).
The following methods/assumptions pertain to discharge data:
• Monitored discharge data are generated from the EPA-approved standard sampling and
analysis methods and documented in the Data Monthly Reports from facilities to
jurisdictions.
• Discharge data which date to the earlier years of the record are inadequate for many
regions in the Bay watershed; however, the 1986 baseline is consistent throughout the
record.
• Facilities have been added to the point source database over the years, not necessarily
because they physically came on-line, but because they were previously untracked. In
addition, facilities have been turned inactive in the point source database over time
because they went offline or combined with other facilities as new plants.
• Protocols of calculating discharges from measured or estimated flows and effluent
concentrations have been adjusted throughout the data record to better reflect actual end-
of-pipe loads.
• Tributary-specific pollution reduction and habitat restoration plans ("Tributary
Strategies") for some jurisdictions are not final so the goals will be adjusted in the future
as jurisdictions update implementation plans that better reflect projected point source
discharges.
QA/QC Procedures: Jurisdictions (NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC) providing point
source effluent data to the Bay Program office are expected to submit documentation of their
175
-------
quality assurance and quality control policies, procedures, and specifications in the form of
Quality Assurance Management Plans and Quality Assurance Project Plans. Jurisdictional
documentation, however, is limited and it is unknown if protocols follow EPA-approved
objectives as established in the "Chesapeake Bay Program Quality Assurance Guidelines and
Requirements" section of the CBP Grant and Cooperative Agreement Guidance, which is
relevant to projects involving the collection of environmental data.
Procedures for compiling and managing point source discharge data at the Chesapeake Bay
Program office are documented in the following EPA-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan:
"Standard Operating Procedures for Managing Point Source Data - Chesapeake Bay Program"
on file for the EPA grant (contact: Quality Assurance Officer, Mary Ellen Ley,
mley@chesapeakebay.net).
Data Quality Reviews: Point source data sets from seven jurisdictions are merged at the
Chesapeake Bay Program office. Continual peer-review of the thoroughness of discharge data
and methods of managing the information by the Point Source Workgroup promotes consistency
and completeness among the jurisdictions of calculated end-of-pipe loads.
Data Limitations: The CBP relies on information submitted and approved by the jurisdictions
(NY, MD, PA, VA, WV, DE, and DC).
Error Estimate: The CBP tries to trace significant variability in the data and limit its impact.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Study/survey design procedures for point source discharges can found at:
• "Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Application & Calculation of Nutrient & Sediment
Loadings - Appendix F: Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Point Source
Loads" at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/! 14.pdf
• Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) "Standard Operating Procedures for Managing
Point Source Data - Chesapeake Bay Program" on file for the EPA grant (contact:
Quality Assurance Officer, Mary Ellen Ley, mley@chesapeakebay.net).
The Point Source Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Bay indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=127.
The Point Source Phosphorus Loads Delivered to the Bay indicator is published at
http ://www. chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm? sid= 128.
The Wastewater Pollution Controls indicator is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid= 226.
The indicator and data survey are published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2006reports/IndicatorSurvey_Reducing_Pollution_032406.d
oc.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
176
-------
• Percent of forest buffer planting goal of 10,000 miles achieved [PART annual
outcome measure-Chesapeake Bay Program]
Performance Database: Forest buffer planting is reported as % of goal achieved. The long term
goal is to plant 10,000 miles of forest buffers. The information is based on cumulative acres
planted since FY 1997 provided by the states for the previous calendar year.
The Bay data files used in the indicator are located at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/83-data-2002.xls. Data have been collected
1996-2005 and are expected on an annual basis after 2005.
The FY 2008 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
2007 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2007 in March 2008.
Data Source: Sampling design is formulated by the USDA for tracking projects and funds.
Data and metadata are sent to the Forestry Work Group (state-level Departments of Forestry) by
participating state coordinators and field personnel. Geographic Information System maps are
produced by the UMD Center for Environmental Science. Contacts: Sally Claggett,
sclaggett@fs.fed.us and Judy Okayjokay@chesapeakebay.net
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data collected for tracking linear ft, miles, and acres
of forest buffers are measured directly. State data are merged to get cumulative miles.
Submission criteria have been set and agreed to by State agencies. The data are summarized in a
spreadsheet by geographic location with related extent of project sites. A Geographic
Information System (GIS) is used to help generate the indicator data.
Data Quality Reviews: The data are collected by state field personnel and submitted to the
state-level Departments of Forestry for QA/QC checks.
Data Limitations: The data are only as good as the data originally submitted by the states. This
information passes through many hands before being merged into the annual cumulative miles.
Human error enters into this type of record. The data are compiled and released with utmost
attention to accuracy and validation of locations and extents of riparian forest buffers.
Error Estimate: none calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: The indicator is published at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=83.
The indicator and data survey are published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2006reports/F orestBuffersRestored_Indicator.doc.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
177
-------
• 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,
salinity, suspended sediment, and phytoplankton community composition are collected from the
surface, near-bottom, and variable middle depths.
178
-------
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
Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 15. Silver Spring
Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
179
-------
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
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in 13 coastal areas
Performance Database: EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" and EPA's WATERS Expert Query
Tool
Data Source: Data regarding impaired segments are from EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" and
EPA's WATERS Expert Query Tool updated every two years when states submit their 303(d)
reports on the status of impaired water segments as required in the Clean Water Act (CWA)
305(b) report. Another source of data is the EPA-approved Decision Documents, the Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for state 303(d) data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To begin, the Decision Documents for each Gulf State
are acquired. The water bodies listed as impaired for Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi are
compared to "Surf Your Watershed" and then to the WATERS Expert Query Tool. Louisiana
and Texas have a different form for their Decision Documents, which include only delisted water
bodies. For these two states only "Surf Your Watershed" and WATERS Expert Query Tool are
used. All the data are cross referenced for discrepancies. Then, tables are created for each
watershed in the Gulf of Mexico Program's Priority Watershed Inventory. In all, 67 tables are
created. These tables include a segment identification number for viewing the water segment on
a map, a link to the URL for "Surf Your Watershed", name of the state basin the segment is
located, the watershed the segment is located, the name of the waterbody, the number and type of
impairment for that segment, and the year the impairment is listed. Delisting information is also
listed in the tables for segments that have that information. The information available for
delisting includes the segment identification number, the waterbody name, what impairment was
delisted, the basis for the delisting, and a link to the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
document if it exists. Segments that are shared among two or more watersheds are highlighted
for easier recognition when counting the number of segments duplicated among watersheds.
Shapefiles are acquired from the states that contain the 303(d) (e.g., impaired) segments for that
state. The segments listed in the state shapefile, however, do not always match EPA's ("Surf
Your Watershed", WATERS Expert Query Tool, and Decision Documents). Therefore, it is
sometimes necessary to contact the state for additional shapefiles that contain missing segments.
The data are grouped by watershed with a name to represent the area in the shapefile (ex.
2002_03170009_303d_line). New fields are added to the shapefile such as segment
identification number (matches the number from the tables), TMDL status ("Impaired Water
180
-------
Segment," "TMDL Completed," "Restored"), number of impairments for that segment, list of
impairments for that segment, and the waterbody name for that segment. Maps are then
generated to show the number of impairments in each watershed. "Impaired Water Segments"
are visible with a red cross hatch, "TMDL Completed" has a yellow cross hatch, and a
"Restored" appears with a blue cross hatch. Each segment is labeled with the identification
number found in the shapefile and the table. All maps include the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
number and the HUC name, legend, scale bar, inset map, GMPO logo, disclaimer for the state if
one was provided, and the date the map was created. In all, 67 maps are created.
QA/QC Procedures: There are three EPA data sources: "Surf Your Watershed," "WATERS,"
and Decision Documents. Each data source is cross referenced with the other two sources to
ensure there are no discrepancies in the listed impaired segments. The EPA data sources are
from EPA- reviewed state documents.
Data Quality Reviews: There are no outside reviews of the 67 tables and maps generated in a
report. However, GMPO is awaiting final approval of new web pages that will display them.
This new site will be a subset of "Surf Your Watershed" and will be labeled as "Surf Your Gulf
Watershed". "Surf Your Gulf Watershed" will detail the impaired segments for the 13 priority
areas.
Data Limitations: Data are updated every two years on "Surf Your Watershed" and in
WATERS Expert Query Tool due to the fact that states submit a 303(d) report every two years
on the status of the impaired segments in each state as required in Clean Water Act (CWA)
305(b) report.
Error Estimate: None identified.
References:
EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/map2.cfm
EPA's WATERS (Watershed Assessment Tracking and Environmental Results) Expert Query
Tool http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/expert_query.html
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Restore, enhance, or protect acres of important coastal and marine habitats.
Performance Database: Coastal Emergent wetlands border the Gulf of Mexico and include
tidal saltwater and freshwater marshes and mangroves. Encompassing over two million hectares
(five million acres or more than half of the national total), the Gulf of Mexico coastal wetlands
serve as essential habitat for a diverse range of species.
Total wetland loss (coastal and inland) for the five Gulf States from 1780 until 1980 was
estimated to be 40 million square kilometers, approximately 50%. Between 1985 and 1995 the
southeastern U.S. lost the greatest area of wetland (51% of the national total).
181
-------
Coastal emergent wetland loss for Louisiana represents 67% of the nation's total loss (177,625
hectares or 438,911 acres) from 1978 to 1990.
The Gulf of Mexico Program achieves its acreage goal each year by cooperative funding of
projects that result in the enhancement, protection or restoration of coastal habitat. This coastal
habitat includes marshes, wetlands, tidal flats, oyster beds, seagrasses, mangroves, dunes and
maritime forest ridge areas.
Data Source: The amount of acreage restored, protected and enhanced by the Gulf of Mexico
Program is derived from the individual project's Statement of Work contained within the project
proposal. This acreage is then verified by the EPA Project Officer and by the project's Program
Manager through site visits during the life of the project, quarterly reports submitted to the Gulf
of Mexico Program Office (GMPO), aerial photography, ground-truthing, and digital
topographic. Data verification occurs at the end of the project too.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Gulf of Mexico Program achieves this goal
successfully each year by cooperatively funding restoration projects with our multiple federal
and state program partners. Our partners additionally follow required QA/QC procedures on their
projects and routinely conduct site visits to provide verification of the acreage restored. These
partners and our process to restore, protect and enhance Gulf coastal habitat include:
1. Gulf of Mexico Program Office State Proposal Solicitation through Requests for Proposals
(RFPs)
2. GMP Partnership Challenge Grant Programs
A) National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Cooperative Agreement
5- STAR Habitat Restoration Challenge Grants
Shell Marine Habitat Restoration Grants
B) NOAA Community Restoration Grant Program Supports Gulf Ecological
Management Sites (GEMS)
http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/habitat/hablinks.html
QA/QC Procedures: The projects that are funded are required to provide a QA/QC plan if the
restoration project involves monitoring. In those cases, EPA has documented Assistance
Agreements with QA/QC approved plans. Both NOAA and the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation require QA/QC plans if the projects involve scientific monitoring. Additionally, the
EPA Project Manager is required to conduct site visits, during the duration of the project to
verify actual acreage restored, protected and/or enhanced. QA/QC includes but is not limited to,
aerial photography, ground-truthing, transect growth monitoring and routine site visits of all
funded projects.
Data Quality Reviews: Award Process for supporting habitat at restoration projects through
partnership cooperative agreements.
1. Gulf of Mexico Program Office Competitive RFPs
2. GMP Partnership Challenge Grant Program Grants
A) National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
5-STAR Projects - Habitat office staff and team members review proposals, rank
and recommend projects for funding. This review includes identification of any
182
-------
duplicative proposals already submitted for funding through other grant programs
supported by GMPO, as well as opportunities to broker with other habitat grant
funding programs, i.e. through Coastal America and the Corporate Wetlands
Restoration Partnership Grant Program (CWRP)
Shell Marine Habitat Restoration Grants - Habitat team reviews and ranks
proposals.
B) NOAA Community Restoration Grant Program
Supports Gulf Ecological Management Sites (GEMS). The Gulf of Mexico
Foundation, NOAA and the Gulf of Mexico Program established a Steering
Committee to review and select the NOAA CRP projects for funding. The
steering committee consists of EPA, all GEMS State Managers, NOAA, and
USFWS staff. As with our partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, the review is to ensure there is no duplication of funding and to seek
opportunities for brokering with other restoration grant programs.
Review of the restoration data occurs in the field and through field analysis by the project
manager as the project progresses. This review is accomplished through measures such as aerial
photography, ground-truthing, transect growth monitoring and routine site visits of all funded
projects. Data are verified by EPA and our Program Partners through site visits and quarterly
reports.
Data Limitations: Limitations of use for the data are carefully detailed by the data provider and
project manager for each project that yields acreage. Images and topographic data have routinely
been used for restoration projects and few to no limitations are expected from these datasets
beyond that of image resolution.
Error Estimate: The acreage is documented by the project managers for each project in
required EPA Quarterly Reports. Data are subject to a second verification following the
completion of the project.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Mean percent stony coral cover in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
(FKNMS) and in the coastal waters of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties,
Florida working with all stakeholders (federal, state, regional, and local)
• Maintain the overall health and functionality of seagrass beds in the FKNMS as
measured by the long-term seagrass monitoring project that addresses composition
and abundance, productivity, and nutrient availability
• Maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and coastal waters of the
FKNMS
Performance Database: As required by the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and
Protection Act of 1990, EPA and its partners developed a comprehensive long-term status and
trends monitoring program as a critical component of the Water Quality Protection Program for
183
-------
the FKNMS. The comprehensive monitoring program was initiated in 1995 and includes water
quality, coral reef and seagrass components. Annual results are reported each year on a fiscal-
year basis. Historically, EPA has provided the majority of funding for the three monitoring
projects, but other agencies (e.g., NOAA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), and
state/local government agencies) also provide significant funding.
Data Source: The Water Quality and Seagrass Monitoring Projects are conducted by Florida
International University's Southeast Environmental Research Center (SERC) and the Coral Reef
Evaluation and Monitoring Project is conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research
Institute. EPA provides funding via cooperative agreements and the other government agencies
provide funds via federal assistance agreements or contracts. Monitoring data are collected each
year on an annual or quarterly basis depending on the project. Results of each monitoring
project are reported in annual reports. The data for each monitoring project is collected and
archived by staff of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute under a cooperative
agreement with the EPA. In addition, the principal investigators for each monitoring project
have developed Web sites where anyone can go and review the data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The comprehensive monitoring program for the
FKNMS was developed by a large group of technically competent and knowledgeable scientists
familiar with the aquatic environment of the Florida Keys and the coral reef ecosystem. For each
monitoring project, EPA worked closely with recognized experts to develop a detailed scope of
work including sampling locations and frequency, parameters, field and analytical methods,
quality assurance/quality control, data management, and reporting. The monitoring program was
designed to provide representative coverage of the entire 2,900 square nautical miles of the
Sanctuary. In general, monitoring sites were located throughout the FKNMS on a stratified-
random basis and were determined to be compatible with EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program protocol (http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/reports/epa904r01002.html).
The overall monitoring program was designed to address the primary objective of the
comprehensive long-term monitoring program for the FKNMS - to provide data needed to make
unbiased, statistically rigorous statements about the "status of and trends in" selected water
quality conditions and biological communities in the Sanctuary. For the monitoring program, the
null hypothesis is that there is no change over time. The field data are tested against the null
hypothesis that no change has occurred. All three monitoring projects (water quality, coral reef
and seagrass) have demonstrated the ability to detect change over time and are suitable for
determining the health of the coral reef ecosystem of the FKNMS.
QA/QC Procedures: The principal investigators for each monitoring project developed and
submitted to EPA a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to ensure that the data generated are
accurate and representative of actual conditions and the degree of certainty of the data can be
established. The QAPPs were developed in accordance with EPA guidance documents and the
principal investigators consulted with the Regional QA/QC Officer and the Project Officer for
the monitoring projects. It was required that the QAPP be approved by EPA before any work
could begin on a monitoring project.
Data Quality Review: Through the QAPP, the principal investigators explicitly commit to
incorporating procedures that will reduce random and systematic errors. In addition, the
184
-------
principal investigators document quality assurance procedures and evaluate the quality of the
data being generated by the monitoring projects. Further, the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAG) of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary reviews and assesses the monitoring
projects and the data they produce on a regular and continuing basis.
Data Limitations: There are no known limitations of the data set.
Error Estimate: Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project - a power analysis was done at
the beginning of the project to determine the limit of detectable change for the point count
method used to determine the percent stony coral cover within the FKNMS. The estimate of
actual performance is accurate to 2.4%.
Water Quality Monitoring Project - the project collects data from 154 sites within the FKNMS
on a quarterly basis. Therefore, error estimates for the 2005 baseline values are mostly due to
the large spatial variability and seasonal temporal variability. Because water quality data are not
normally distributed, the project uses the median as the measure of central tendency. For
chlorophyll a, the interquartile range (IQR) is 0.29 and the median absolute deviation (MAD) is
0.12. The light attenuation kd IQR is 0.12 and the MAD is 0.05. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen
has an IQR of 0.50 and a MAD of 0.26. For total phosphorus, the IQR is 0.90 and the MAD is
0.04.
Seagrass Monitoring Project - benthic plant community structure is measured using the rapid
visual assessment technique known as the Braun-Blanquet method. This method is very quick,
yet it is robust and highly repeatable, thereby minimizing among-observer differences. The
Braun-Blanquet method has proven to be precise enough to detect subtle interannual variations
yet robust enough to survive changes in personnel. Elemental content (carbon, nitrogen, and
phosphorus) of seagrass leaves is determined by cleaning the leaves of all epiphytes, drying the
leaves at low temperature, and grinding to a fine powder. Elemental content is then measured
using established methods and calculating on a dry weight basis. All isotopic analyses are
determined on the material collected for elemental analysis at the SERC Stable Isotope Lab using
standard elemental analyzer isotope ratio mass spectrometer (EA-IRMS) procedures. Analytical
reproducibility of the reported values, based on sample replicates, are better than 0.2%o for 15N
and0.08%ofor13C.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: The database management system for the
Water Quality Protection Program of the FKNMS is geographic information based (GIS) and
used to record the biological, physical, and chemical results from the comprehensive monitoring
projects. The data from the three monitoring projects are collected and archived by the database
managers at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. The data archives component
encompasses both raw and synthesized data. The data integration component incorporates the
synthesized data, both tabular and geospatial. These data are integrated into a GIS to facilitate
further analysis by scientists and managers. The results data contained within the database
integration system are documented with project level metadata as well as attribute or parameter
level metadata. An Internet Map Service (IMS) is being created to serve the data and this
website will make both data access and mapping capabilities available to users without having
access to expensive GIS-mapping software. An IMS allows users to view and query GIS and
tabular data via a Web browser without having an expensive GIS on their computer. The overall
185
-------
goal of the database management system is to provide a data integration system that takes into
account the varying levels of data produced by the various monitoring projects and the needs of
both managers and researchers.
References:
http: //sere. fiu. edu/wqmnetwork/
www.serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork
www.fiu.edu/~seagrass
http://ocean. fl ori dam arine. org/fknm s_wqpp
http ://research.myfwc. com/features/category_sub. asp?id=23 60
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as measured by total
phosphorus, including meeting the 10 parts per billion total phosphorus criterion
throughout the Everglades Protection Area marsh and the effluent limits to be
established for discharges from storm water treatment areas
Performance Database: As required by the Clean Water Act and Florida's Everglades Forever
Act, the oligotrophic Everglades marsh within the Everglades Protection Area must meet the
newly adopted 10 parts per billion numeric criterion for total phosphorus. EPA approved the
criterion and its application methodology in 2005. A monitoring program to determine whether
the criterion is in fact being met throughout the Everglades marsh is necessary to determine
whether the water body can be expected to meet its designated use, whether phosphorus
concentrations are stable or are increasing, whether the concentrations in impacted areas are
improving, and whether watershed phosphorus control efforts costing in excess of $1 billion are
effective.
Data Source: Water quality is monitored throughout the Everglades marsh at dozens of long-
term monitoring stations. These stations are sampled cooperatively in a joint effort by Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management District, Everglades
National Park, and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Some of these stations were
monitored previously by the United States Geological Survey beginning as long ago as 1953.
Results of monitoring are reported in annual reports. The data are collected and are available to
the public through a web site. Sormwater Treatment Area (STA) effluent phosphorus
monitoring is in place as required by Florida and NPDES permits.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The monitoring program was developed by scientists,
with decades of experience regarding Everglades water quality and ecology, from the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida Water Management District, Everglades
National Park, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and the EPA. The marsh monitoring
program is designed to provide representative coverage of the entire 2,000 square mile
freshwater Everglades. The monitoring program is capable of detecting temporal trends in
phosphorus condition throughout the Everglades. The null hypothesis is that there is no change
over time.
186
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Field samples are collected by standard sampling protocol and analytical
results are from accredited laboratories using standard methods. In addition, a series of ongoing
laboratory round-robin exercises are overseen by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Field and lab protocol are also periodically reassessed by a Technical Oversight
Committee that includes five Florida and federal agencies. Quality Assurance Project Plans are
in place.
Data Quality Review: Water is sampled in the field by Department of Interior or South Florida
Water Management District technical personnel using established Standard Operating
Procedures. Data are subject to ongoing quality review by the interagency Technical Oversight
Committee on a regular and continuing basis.
Data Limitations: There are no known limitations of the data set.
Error Estimate: Annual average total phosphorus concentrations are accurate to within 1 part
per billion.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: Interagency dialogue and oversight provide
ongoing reassessments that evaluate data credibility and completeness.
References:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/ecoregions/
http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/ema/toc/index.html
http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/ema/toc/archives_docs.html
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/assessment/index.htm
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/everglades/roundrobin.htm
http://wwwalker.net/tfSelected%20Publications
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Additional miles of river and stream corridor reopened to anadramous fish passage
through removal of dams and barriers or installation of by-pass structures such as
fishways [Long Island Sound]
Performance Database: An internal database is under development to track the measure.
Data Source: The states within the Long Island Sound watershed will provide the data to
track this measure. The 2005 cumulative baseline is 81 miles reopened. Long Island Sound
Study, Sound Health 2006 Environmental Indicators:
www.longislandsoundstudy.net/indicators/index.htm on Habitat Protection/River Miles
Restored and Coastal Habitat Restored. Stamford, CT: EPA Long Island Sound Office
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
187
-------
• Percent of the population in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories served by
community drinking water systems will receive drinking water that meets all
applicable health-based drinking water standards throughout the year (2005
Baseline: 95 percent of the population in American Samoa, 10 percent in CNMI
(Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), and 80 percent of Guam served by
community water systems received drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards throughout the year.)
Performance Database: SDWIS (Safe Drinking Water Information System) is the database
used to track this performance measure throughout the United States. However, of the three U.S.
territories in the Pacific, only American Samoa has put data into this database on a reliable basis.
(For example, Guam has not entered data in this database in years. We are working with CNMI
and Guam in 2007 to enter data into SDWIS on a reliable basis.) In the interim, in Guam and
CNMI we are working to get the data directly from the public water systems.
Data Source: Health-based violations are either reported by the territories (currently American
Samoa only) or obtained through direct communication with public water systems (currently
Guam and CNMI). Percentage of population served by community drinking water systems
receiving 24-hour water is obtained through direct communication with territory (CNMI only).
Population data are obtained from U.S. Census data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Our method is to calculate the performance measure as
the percentage of people in the territories served by public water systems who are receiving 24-
hour water that meets all health-based drinking water standards (i.e., no health-based violations).
We can provide an aggregate value for the three Pacific territories using a weighted average
based upon their populations. Our first main assumption is that a public water system must
provide 24-hour water on a regular basis before it can provide drinking water that meets all
health-based drinking water standards. This is an assumption that generally does not need to be
made in the rest of the United States; and in the Pacific territories is an issue mainly in the
CNMI. For example, the island of Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands (population 70,000) is
the only municipality of its size in the U.S. without 24-hour water (most of its residents get water
only one or two hours per day; all but the poorest residents rely on bottled water or rain water as
the source of their drinking water). This method is suitable for the Pacific islands because the
situation is unique to the Pacific Island territories, and is one of the underlying reasons for the
need to track access to safe drinking water. Our second main assumption is that health-based
violations reported by the territories are correct. Our third main assumption is that US Census
data are correct.
QA/QC Procedures: American Samoa follows QA/QC procedures in the data it submits to EPA
for entry into the SDWIS database. There is no other Quality Management Plan or Quality
Assurance Project Plan currently associated with this indicator.
Data Quality Reviews: Although the territories are responsible for reviewing and assuring
quality of health-based violation reporting, EPA has had to communicate directly with public
water systems in Guam and CNMI to get the data (and continues to do so as part of ongoing
enforcement and compliance efforts). EPA is also in direct communication with the territories to
188
-------
obtain percentage of population receiving 24-hour water. The US Census is responsible for
reviewing and assuring population data quality. There is no other peer review or external data
quality review.
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) inconsistencies in reporting health-
based violations among territories; and (b) inaccuracies due to imprecise measurement of
percentage of population served by public water systems that receives 24-hour water.
Error Estimate: A quantitative estimate of error in the database is not possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Regarding SDWIS data, EPA will be working with the
territories of Guam and CNMI in 2007 to provide more complete data to assess performance.
Regarding percentage of population receiving 24-hour water, EPA will be working closely with
the CNMI public water system and the CNMI Water Task Force (in the Office of the Governor)
to both more accurately assess percentage of population receiving 24-hour water, and to provide
24-hour water to a greater percentage of the population.
References: N/A.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Sewage treatment plants in the U.S. Pacific Island Territories will comply 90
percent of the time with permit limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and
total suspended solids (TSS) (2005 Baseline: the sewage treatment plants in the Pacific
Island Territories complied 59 percent of the time with BOD and TSS permit limits.)
Performance Database: ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System) is used to track this
performance measure.
Data Source: DMRs (Discharge Monitoring Reports) provided to EPA on a quarterly basis by
the Pacific Island wastewater utilities are the data source.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Permit conditions require each of the wastewater
utilities to use EPA approved sampling methods. DMRs are self-reported by the Pacific island
utilities to EPA on a quarterly basis for major facilities (greater than 1 million gallons per day of
discharge). The main assumption is that the self-reported data are accurate.
QA/QC Procedures: Each of the Pacific island utility labs has and follows QA/QC procedures
for this data.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA reviews the DMR reports to make sure they are thoroughly filled
out. There are occasional EPA field audits of the utility labs.
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) inconsistencies among personnel in
performing sampling and analysis; and (b) incomplete data due to lack of sampling or lack of lab
equipment.
189
-------
Error Estimate: A quantitative estimate of error in the database is not possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA maintains communication with each of the utilities to
improve sampling and analysis of BOD and TSS, and to improve reporting of DMRs.
References: N/A
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Beaches in each of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories monitored under the Beach
Safety Program will be open and safe for swimming 96 percent of days of the beach
season (2005 Baseline: beaches were open and safe 64 percent of the 365-day beach
season in American Samoa, 97 percent in CNMI and 76 percent in Guam.)
Performance Database: PRAWN ((Program tracking for Advisories, Water quality and
Nutrients) is used to track this performance measure.
Data Source: Reports provided to EPA on a quarterly basis by the Pacific Island environmental
agencies (Guam EPA, American Samoa EPA, CNMI DEQ) are the data source.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Pacific Island environmental agencies use EPA-
approved methods to take bacteriological samples at beaches and analyze them in their labs.
They put together reports that include beach sampling data and number of days beaches were
closed or had advisories posted based on bacteriological concerns. The Pacific Island
environmental agencies submit these reports to EPA on a quarterly basis. EPA inputs data from
the report into the PRAWN database. The main assumption is that the Pacific Island
environmental agencies are following the EPA-approved methods for sampling and analysis. The
secondary assumption is that EPA's contractor is correctly entering data from the reports.
QA/QC Procedures: Each of the Pacific Island environmental agencies has EPA-certified
laboratories. Part of the certification process is establishing and adhering to QA/QC procedures.
Data Quality Reviews: EPA recertifies the labs on a periodic basis. Data quality from all lab
procedures is reviewed.
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) reporting inconsistencies within the
database among jurisdictions which report on a quarterly basis (as the Pacific territories do) and
on an annual basis.
Error Estimate: A quantitative estimate of error in the database is not possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA maintains communication with the Pacific territorial
environmental agencies on changes in format which make it easier to enter data into the PRAWN
database.
190
-------
References: N/A.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Acres of wetland habitat and 3,000 acres of upland habitat in the Lower Columbia
River watershed.
Performance Database: The database used to track habitat restoration in the Lower Columbia
River watershed is titled "Regional Restoration Project Inventory". The database includes at a
minimum the following data fields: Project title, lead organization, project partners,
latitude/longitude, and acreage.
Results are updated annually on a fiscal year basis.
Data Source: Habitat restoration data are reviewed through direct communication with multiple
agencies and partners conducting habitat restoration projects in the Lower Columbia River
watershed, and the database is cross-referenced with other state, regional, and federal funding
sources and project tracking databases. Due to the numerous partners involved in each project,
and their involvement in the maintenance of the database, the confidence in the data accuracy
and reliability is high.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Habitat restoration data in the Lower Columbia River
watershed is collected and tracked via direct and ongoing communication with the network of
agencies and organizations conducting habitat restoration in the watershed. The main assumption
for this method is that all agencies and organizations conducting habitat restoration in the
watershed are included in the database review. The acreage indicator chosen is suitable for
progress towards our goal because the restoration projects included in the database protect,
enhance, and restore both wetland and upland habitat.
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures do not apply to tracking the Regional Restoration
Project Inventory database. The database is reviewed by entities involved in or conducting
habitat restoration projects in the Lower Columbia River watershed. The database is maintained
annually, reviewed internally, distributed to regional entities conducting habitat restoration, and
referenced when reporting several times annually. There is no Quality Management Plan or
Quality Assurance Project Plan associated with this indicator.
Data Quality Reviews: The Regional Restoration Project Inventory is a database and reporting
tool that employs the available level of project detail by multiple agencies and organizations.
This tool is used internally and amongst agencies and organizations conducting habitat
restoration in the Lower Columbia River watershed, therefore peer reviews, audits, and reports
by external groups are not applicable.
Data Limitations: Potential data limitations include: (a) inconsistencies in or non-standard
methods of acreage measurement, due to multiple agencies and organizations reporting; (b)
inaccuracies due to imprecise measurement of acreage; (c) significant variability in the data, due
to advancements in acreage calculation methods and therefore variable accuracy over time; (e)
191
-------
incomplete or inaccurate data from agencies and organizations that choose not to submit or
review project data.
Error Estimate: Based on the level of involvement from agencies and organizations conducting
habitat restoration in the Lower Columbia River, the quantitative estimate of actual performance
and calculation of error in the database is not possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The tracking of habitat restoration project data in the Lower
Columbia River watershed will improve with the advancement of tracking technologies,
including GIS analysis, and the maintained communication with agencies and organizations
conducting habitat restoration in the watershed. The management of the database will adapt to
these advancements when technically and feasibly possible.
References: N/A
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 4
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• 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)
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Annual milestones in support of the Multi-Year Plan
for Endocrine Disrupters research are developed and revised during the annual budget and
performance planning process. Self-assessments of progress toward completing these activities
are based on the pre-defined goals.
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual milestones be
clearly defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year. Progress
toward completing these activities is monitored by ORD management.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research milestones and
outputs being measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program
reviews are used to measure research quality and impact.
Error Estimate: N/A
192
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Endocrine Disrupters Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/edc.pdf (last
accessed on January 3, 2007)
FY 2008 Performance 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 (PART measure)
Performance Database: Internal Regional EPA tracking system for partners in twenty-three
states.
Data Source: Data are derived from internal assessments of state activities.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data for this measure are collected based on
assessments of the number of states using Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) data to monitor the condition of ecological resources. EMAP data are generated, in
part, by a cooperative agreement with twenty-three states to conduct the National Coastal
Assessment Monitoring survey, which introduces 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.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
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:
EMAP data, available at: http://www.epa.gov/docs/emap/index.html (last accessed on January 4,
2007)
193
-------
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.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• 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)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support efficient and effective clean-ups
and safe disposal of contamination wastes.
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of water security initiatives
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of risk assessors and decision-
makers in the rapid assessment of risk and the determination of cleanup goals and
procedures following contamination.
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered on time in support of establishment of the
environmental National Laboratory Response Network
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of HHRA health assessments.
(PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Air Quality Criteria/Science
Assessment documents (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of HHRA Technical Support
Documents (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management Systems (internal database) or other
internal tracking system.
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of progress towards
achievement of a program's long-term goals, each program annually develops a list of key
research outputs scheduled for completion by the end of each fiscal year. This list is finalized by
the start of the fiscal year, and no changes are made after this point. The program then tracks
quarterly the progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-determined schedules
and milestones. The final score is the percent of key outputs from the original list that are
successfully completed on-time.
194
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Procedures are now in place to require that all annual outputs be clearly
defined and mutually agreed upon within ORD by the start of each fiscal year. Progress toward
completing these activities is monitored by ORD management
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the research outputs being
measured. However, long-term performance measures and independent program reviews are
used to measure research quality and impact
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Human Health Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/HH%20MYP%20Final.pdf
(last accessed January 3, 2007).
Global Change Research Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/global.pdf (last
accessed January 3, 2007)
Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://epa.gov/osp/myp/HHRA.pdf (last accessed January 3, 2007).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Average cost to produce Air Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents
(Efficiency 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) (Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of progress toward completing
program goals.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The HHRA Program's efficiency measure tracks the
cost to produce AQCDs for use by the Office of Air and Radiation in developing their policy
options for the NAAQS. Total FTE and extramural dollar costs are cumulated over a five year
period and divided by the number of AQCDs produced in this time period, to create a moving
annual average $/AQCD. The Human Health Program's efficiency measure tracks the average
time to process and award grants.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
195
-------
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data do not capture the quality or impact of the program activities.
However, other performance measures and independent program reviews are used to measure the
quality and impact of the program.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of
concluded enforcement actions [PART]
• Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that pollution be reduced,
treated, or eliminated [PART]
• Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring implementation of improved
environmental management practices [PART]
• 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
[PART]
Performance Databases: The Integrated Compliance Information System Federal Enforcement
& Compliance (ICIS FE&C) database tracks EPA judicial and administrative civil enforcement
actions. The newly enhanced Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS) tracks criminal
enforcement actions.
Data Source: Most of the essential data on environmental results in ICIS FE&C is collected
through the Case Conclusion Data Sheet (CCDS), which 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. Information from the CCDS is used to track progress for several
of the performance measures. The CCDS form consists of 22 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 defendant/respondent, in response to an
order for injunctive relief or otherwise in response to the enforcement action, will: (1)
196
-------
implement controls that will reduce pollutants; and/or (2) improve environmental management
practices to curtail, eliminate or better monitor and handle pollutants in the future.
The Criminal Enforcement Program also collects information on pollution reductions on a
separate case conclusion data form. The criminal enforcement case conclusion form is being
used in FY07.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For enforcement actions which result in pollution
reductions, staff estimate the amount of pollution reduced for an immediately implemented
improvement, or for an average year once a long-term solution is in place. There are established
procedures to be used by EPA staff to calculate, by statute, e.g., Clean Water Act (CWA), the
pollutant reductions or eliminations. The calculation determines 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: QA/QC procedures [See references] are in place for both the CCDS and
ICIS FE&C data entry. There is a CCDS Training Booklet [See references] and a CCDS Quick
Guide [See references], both of which have been updated and distributed throughout regional and
headquarters= 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 when 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). The Office of Compliance's (OC) 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. 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, OECA instituted a
requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of ICIS information.
In addition, in FY 2003, OC established a quarterly data review process to ensure timely input,
data accuracy, and reliability of EPA's enforcement and compliance information.
Data Quality Review: Information contained in the CCDS and ICIS FE&C are required by
policy to be reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy. ICIS
data are quality-reviewed quarterly, and reviewed and certified at mid-year and end-of-year.
Data Limitations: Pollutant reductions or eliminations reported in CCDS are projected
estimates of pollutants to be reduced or eliminated 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 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
197
-------
case, OECA=s expectation is that the overall amount of pollutants to be reduced or eliminated
will be prudently underestimated based on CCDS information.
Error Estimate: Not available
New & Improved Data or Systems: In November 2000, EPA completed a comprehensive
guide on the preparation of the CCDS estimates. This guide, issued to headquarters and regional
staff, was made available in print and CD-ROM, and was supplemented in FY 2002 and updated
in FY 2004 [See references]. The guide 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 QMP 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 (CCRS) came on-line during FY 2006 and replaces
the existing criminal docket (CRIMDOC). This new system is more user friendly and allows for
greater tracking, management, and reporting capabilities.
In June, FY 2006, a new version of the ICIS data system, ICIS FE&C, became operational. The
new data system has all of the functionality of old ICIS (ICIS 1.0) but also adds functionality for
tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities. In addition, another component of ICIS,
"ICIS-NPDES" is becoming the database of record for the CWA National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program, including all federal and state enforcement, compliance
and permitting data. States will be migrated in phases to ICIS NPDES from the legacy data
system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS), over a period of about two years. As a state's
data is migrated from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, so too is its NPDES federal compliance and
enforcement data for that state.
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). CCDS: CCDS, Training Booklet, issued November 2000;
Quick Guide for CCDS, issued November 2000, and "Guide for Calculating Environmental
Benefits of Enforcement Cases: FY2005 CCDS Update" issued August 2004 available:
http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/resources/ccds/ccds.pdf 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, OECA, ICIS Phase I, 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 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site
compliance inspections and evaluations
Performance Databases: ICIS FE&C and manual reporting by regions.
198
-------
Data Sources: EPA regional offices, Office of Civil Enforcement - Air Enforcement Division
(Mobile Source program), Office of Compliance - Agriculture Division (Good Laboratory
Practices), and the Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division (Wood Heaters).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet, (ICDS) will
be used to analyze results from inspections/evaluations conducted under EPA=s statutes. EPA
will analyze ICDS from on-site complying actions taken by facilities, deficiencies observed, and
compliance assistance provided. The EPA inspectors complete the ICDS for each inspection or
evaluation conducted, and the information is entered into ICIS or reported manually. This
measure was selected because it directly counts the number of times compliance assistance has
been provided and allows for the analysis of the data to determine trends over time.
QA/QC Procedures: The ICIS FE&C data system has been developed per Office of
Environmental Information 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: The information in the CCDS, ICDS and ICIS FE&C is required by
policy to be reviewed by regional and headquarters= staff for completeness and accuracy. In
FY2003, to satisfy the GPRA, the Agency's information quality guidelines, and other significant
enforcement and compliance policies on performance measurement, OECA instituted a
requirement for semiannual executive certification of the overall accuracy of information. ICIS
FE&C data are reviewed quarterly and certified at mid-year and end of year.
Data Limitations: ICIS FE&C is the official database of record for all inspections not reported
into one of the legacy data bases (with the exception of the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
inspections in some regions). Legacy databases still operational include Air Facility System
(AFS), FS, PCS, RCRAInfo, National Compliance Data Base System (NCDB), and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) / Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Tracking System (FTTS). Beginning in 2007, NCDB/FTTS inspection data will be reported
into ICIS FE&C. Regions have been encouraged to report all inspection ICDS information into
ICIS. If regions continue to use manual reporting for ICDS, it may result in redundant,
incomplete, or contradictory data.
New & Improved Data or Systems: In June FY 2006, a new version of the ICIS data system,
ICIS FE&C became operational. The new data system has all of the functionality of old ICIS
(ICIS 1.0) but adds functionality for tracking EPA enforcement and compliance activities.
Further, ICIS-NPDES is beginning to replace the PCS as the database of record for the NPDES
program, including all federal and state enforcement, compliance and permitting data. (States
will be migrating over to ICIS-NPDES in phases, over a period of about two years.)
References:
» ICIS: U.S. EPA, OECA, ICIS FE&C, implemented June 2006
» ICIS: U.S. EPA, OECA, ICIS-NPDES, implemented June 2006
199
-------
• Memo dated October 11, 2005: Entering Manually Reported Federal Inspections into
ICIS in FY 2006
• Internal EPA database
• Non-enforcement sensitive data available to the public through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).
FY 2008 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: These measures are automatically produced in the
ICIS database which records the number of entities that received direct assistance from EPA and
report that they improved an environmental management practice and/or report that they
reduced, treated or eliminated pollution as a result of EPA assistance. ICIS produces the
percentage by dividing the number of respondents to each of two follow-up survey questions by
the number of respondents. The figure is aggregated nationally from the regional data. A
percentage measure was chosen to track the goal for year to year comparability as opposed to a
direct number which varies year to year.
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
Error Estimate: None
200
-------
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, ICIS 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
ICIS, March 2005.
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Number of pounds of reduced (in millions) of priority chemicals as measured by
National Partnership for Environmental Priorities members.
• Number of pounds of priority list chemicals removed from or reduced in waste streams
per cost to perform such actions. [PART efficiency]
Performance Database: Under Information Collection Request no. 2050-0190
("Reporting Requirements Under EPA's National Partnership for Environmental Priorities",
renewed April 2006) the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) program
collects information on partner (mostly from the industrial sector, and one municipal facility)
priority chemical reduction commitments, technical solutions proposed to achieve reductions,
and actual reduction achievements. Achievements are verified through discussions between EPA
waste minimization national experts and partner technical personnel, and further verified using
the Toxics Release Inventory system where possible.
NPEP efficiency measure: The denominator of the efficiency measure, or the cost to perform
such actions, equals program cost minus quantifiable benefit per pound of reduction.
Program cost is calculated to be the cost for Federal program implementation (FTE + grant and
contract funding). Industry cost is neutral. Quantifiable benefits include information collected
through NPEP success stories on resource savings (e.g. water, energy) resulting from
implementation of waste minimization technologies and processes.
Data Source: As part of their partnership agreement, NPEP partners provide information
concerning what priority list chemicals they commit to reduce, the process through which the
reduction will be achieved, and the time frame for achieving the commitment. When the
commitment is achieved they provide EPA with a "success story" which identifies the actual
achievement, confirms the process used to achieve the reduction, and provides additional
information of interest to the general public and other technical personnel concerning how the
achievement was met. Information is reviewed by EPA waste minimization national experts for
reasonableness based on best professional judgment. An internal tracking system is used to track
pounds committed, achievement date, and actual achievement. NPEP partner achievement data
is further verified against TRI reporting when the partner is a TRI regulated facility. The
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), Section 313
(Toxics Release Inventory) and expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (40 CFR Part
201
-------
13101; www.epa.gov/tri) requires that regulated facilities report facility-specific, chemical-
specific release, waste and recycling data to EPA.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Regional targets are calculated to meet the national
total goal. This is a new measure which does not have comparable historical data. EPA does not
intend to reconcile FY 08 results with prior years.
EPA waste minimization national experts are trained in industrial or chemical engineering and
have significant experience in evaluating industrial processes for waste minimization potential
and efficiency. Their professional judgment forms the basis for accepting the applicants' waste
minimization commitment and achievement. Additionally, when the partner is also a TRI
regulated facility, achievement data are verified against TRI reporting
QA/QC Procedures:
Internal tracking: EPA engineers review commitment information. In cases where
commitment information is initially incomplete or lacks substantiation, EPA engineers may
conduct site visits in order to make a determination that the commitment is reasonably
achievable. Information on number of pounds committed for reduction, achievement date and
actual achievement is reported by NPEP partners and stored in an internal NPEP tracking
system. Tracking system data are periodically reviewed by EPA regional coordinators to ensure
that they accurately reflects partner commitments. Corrections are made to tracking system data
when they are identified.
TRI Database verification: 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:
Internal Tracking data: Tracking system data are periodically reviewed by EPA regional
coordinators to ensure that they accurately reflects partner commitments. Corrections are made
to tracking system data when they are identified.
TRI data: 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, February, 2002,
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.
202
-------
Data Limitations: For both internal tracking system and TRI data, 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.
Error Estimate:
Internal Tracking: This is a new measurement tool, implemented with the 2006 - 2011
strategic plan. No error estimate is available at this time. However, EPA is developing an error
tracking process for use in 2007 and should have an error estimate for fiscal year 2007 in early
2008.
TRI data: 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: Use of internal tracking data allows EPA to measure direct
progress resulting from the NPEP program. Historically EPA has measured trends using TRI.
Because TRI data are influenced by a variety of factors, including multiple EPA and State
regulations, voluntary programs, and national economic trends, use of TRI did not allow EPA to
directly measure program results. The internal tracking system is a limited data set and is 100%
reviewed by expert engineers, is a reasonably accurate data set.
References: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/index.htm;
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; www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) indices are available at
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program participants (PART
measure)
• BTUs of energy reduced, conserved or offset by P2 program participants (annual
measure)
• Gallons of water reduced by P2 program participants (annual measure)
• Business, institutional and government cost reduced by P2 program participants
(PART measure)
203
-------
The Agency's Pollution Prevention programs, or results centers, include Green Chemistry,
Design for the Environment, Green Engineering, Regional Offices for Results, Pollution
Prevention Resource Exchange (P2RX), Environmentally Preferable Purchasing, Hospitals for a
Healthy Environment, and Green Suppliers Network. Each of these program/results centers
operates under the principles of the Pollution Prevention Act and works with others to reduce
waste at the source, before it is generated. The 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. Each
program/results center contributes outcome results which are added to the combined flow of
results. Data is rolled up into a single tracking tool: "P2 Program 2011 Strategic Targets -
Contributions by Program.xls," which aggregates annual progress toward the goals.
Performance Database:
Green Chemistry (GC): EPA has developed an electronic database ("metrics" database) that
allows organized storage and retrieval of green chemistry data submitted to EPA on alternative
feedstocks, processes, and safer chemicals. The database was 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 was also
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. The database currently has information on
all technologies received through 2006.
Design for the Environment (DfE): DfE has an evaluation spreadsheet that is populated for all its
programs (i.e., Alternatives to Lead Solder in Electronics, Furniture Flame Retardant
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 vary by project, and generally include measures comparing
baseline technologies or products to safer ones, as well as information on partner adoption and/or
market share of safer alternatives. For example, the DfE Formulator Program tracks the move to
safer chemicals (such as pounds of chemicals of concern no longer used by partners, and
conversely pounds of safer ingredients) and reductions in water and energy use.
Green Engineering (GE): GE will be developing an electronic database to keep track of
environmental benefits of GE projects including pounds of hazardous chemicals prevented
and/or eliminated, gallons of water, British Thermal Units (BTUs) and dollars saved and pounds
of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions eliminated.
Regional Offices: EPA's Regional Offices' (Regions) P2 results come primarily through grants
they award, and results from projects managed by EPA Regional staff. Regional Offices use the
GranTrack database to collect and organize information on the P2 and Source Reduction grants
they award. GranTrack includes multiple information fields covering administrative and
financial aspects of the grants as well as results reported by grantees. The database can be
searched and reports developed in numerous ways, including by Region, type of grant, year grant
204
-------
awarded, and year of results. Data may be displayed for individual grants or in aggregate
covering multiple grants.
P2Rx: Many state and local P2 programs are currently collecting data on P2 program activities,
outputs, and outcomes to feed into the National Pollution Prevention Results System, which will
provide data on pollution prevention environmental outcomes performance measures.
Standardized metrics have been developed, with definitions, as well as an ongoing system to
gather data on these metrics through the regional P2Rx centers. Over 30 state and state-level
P2 organizations have signed Memoranda of Agreements to provide data. As the system is
implemented, data collected from the programs will be placed first in regional databases
managed by the 8 P2Rx centers and then in a new national database. The system was ready for
initial use on a national scale in Spring 2006. Each P2Rx center now hosts a Regional
Aggregation Module set up to collect data from each program in their region. Actual data entry is
just starting. In order to avoid counting data describing the same results twice in EPA
performance measurement systems, data from work funded by EPA grants reported through the
EPA GranTrack system will be counted in the Regional Center for Results totals, and not in the
P2Rx center totals when that data is also reported to the P2Rx center directly by the grantee.
Since state and other results funded by EPA grants will be reported through the Regional Center
for Results, as just described, the results reported in EPA performance measurement systems
through the P2Rx center will therefore be funded from non-federal sources. As a result, EPA
cannot claim full responsibility for these results. Nevertheless, EPA support for P2 research, such
as technical assistance and outreach through such mechanisms as publications, training, and
information inquiries answered by the 8 P2Rx centers, contributes to national P2 progress even
when there is no direct EPA funding for a specific project. To capture this indirect effect of
EPA's role, 10% of the results reported through the P2Rx center will be counted in EPA
performance measurement systems.
Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E) Program: The H2E program maintains its own
electronic program database. Data is collected voluntarily from Partners on an ongoing and
continuous basis. Data is requested on mercury and waste reduction information broken down
by types of waste. Information on BTUs, gallons of water, and dollar savings are only requested
in award applications.
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): GSN utilizes a Customer Relationship Management database
(CRM) in partnership with the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program (NIST MEP) to collect performance metrics for the program.
The CRM was originally configured to collect economic information from companies receiving
services through the NIST MEP system. The CRM has been modified to capture the
environmental metrics collected during a GSN review at a company, such as the value of
environmental impact savings identified, energy conserved (BTU, kwh/year), water conserved
(gal/year), water pollution reduced (Ibs/year), air emissions reduced (Ibs/year), hazardous waste
reduced (Ibs/year), solid waste reduced (Ibs/year), and toxic/hazardous chemical use reduced
(Ibs/year).
EPP Center for Results. Results for Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) come from
the Federal Electronics Challenge (FEC), the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment
205
-------
Tool (EPEAT), and Green Janitorial Products. FEC uses the FEC Administrative Database for
storage and retrieval of baseline and annual reporting information from FEC partners. EPP staff
run these reporting data through the Environmental Benefits Calculator to calculate pounds of
hazardous and non-hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy conserved, and costs saved
(among other benefits) on an annual basis. EPEAT-registered manufacturers provide reporting
data via the Green Electronics Council, which collects and organizes EPEAT reporting data. As
with FEC, the EPP team runs these reporting data through the Environmental Benefits Calculator
to calculate pounds of hazardous and non-hazardous pollution reduced, units of energy
conserved, and costs saved (among other benefits) on an annual basis. For Janitorial Products,
the EPP team will collect annual reporting data from various EPA contacts for EPA's
Environmental Management System (EMS), and then run these data through the Green Cleaning
Calculator to calculate pounds of hazardous pollution reduced. FY 2006 data will be collected in
January 2007. This collection will be the first time FEC uses an online form to collect program
data.
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 public benefit information from the
nominations. The database currently has information on all technologies received through 2006.
Design for the Environment (DfE): The source of DfE's evaluation information varies by the
project and the partner industry. For example, in DfE's Formulator Recognition Program,
partners provide proprietary information on the production volume of their improved
formulations. For other partnerships, data sources typically include technical studies (e.g.,
Alternatives Assessments and Life-Cycle Assessments) and market/sales/adoption information
from sources such as industry associations.
Green Engineering (GE): Data will come from various sources and partners including the
regions, academia and industry. For example, for GE projects related to the pharmaceutical
industry, data will be directly reported by the project leaders. Some information may also come
from profiles of recognized projects taken from 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.
Regional Offices: P2 Grant and Source Reduction grant data are secured from grant applications,
grant reports and supplemental forms and entered into the P2 Grant Database, Gran Track.
P2Rx center: See above.
H2E Program: Because the H2E program is a voluntary program, the information collected is
voluntarily submitted by hospital Partners. The H2E program maintains an ICR for the
collection of data which allows EPA to collect data from third parties under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
206
-------
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): Data are collected by the GSN Review Team during a GSN
review at the company's facility. This team consists of a "lean" manufacturing expert from the
NIST MEP system and an environmental expert usually from the state environmental agency or
its designee. Lean manufacturing is a business model and collection of methods that help
eliminate waste while delivering quality products on time and at least cost. NIST MEP has a
system of lean experts who assist businesses through the process of becoming more efficient and
cost effective. The metrics are recorded in the final report generated for the company's use and
also are entered into the CRM database by the NIST MEP center. All MEP centers are grantees
to the Department of Commerce and must adhere to DOC's requirements for the collection and
handling of data. These requirements are reinforced by the terms of the "Request for Proposals"
to which each center (e.g., grantee) responds and which must be followed during a GSN review.
EPP Center for Results. For FEC, the data source is federal partners. For EPEAT, the data
source is EPEAT-registered manufacturers of electronic products. For Janitorial Products, the
data source is EPA EMS contacts for procuring janitorial products.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability:
Green Chemistry (GC): The public information is tracked directly through internal record-
keeping systems. No models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
Design for the Environment (DfE): Each DfE partnership identifies and focuses on a unique set
of chemicals and industrial processes. For DfE's Formulator Recognition Program, partner-
provided data on production volumes is aggregated to determine the total reductions of
hazardous chemicals achieved through the program. For Lead-Free Solder and Furniture Flame
Retardants, market data for the production volume of the chemical of concern provides the
measure for reduction. DfE's Data Program Tracking Spreadsheet includes the methods and
assumptions for each project's measures.
Green Engineering (GE): The information will be supplied directly by project leaders and/or
academic-industry-region partners. The information will be tracked directly through EPA record
keeping systems. GE's Data Program Tracking spreadsheet includes methods and assumptions.
Regional Offices: The data will come from state and other P2 grantees and other sources as
described above. No models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed by EPA
P2Rx: The data will come from state and local P2 programs as described above. No models or
assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
H2E Program: The data comes directly from program Partners, specifically hospitals. No
models or assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
Green Suppliers Network (GSN)'. Data is entered by the NIST MEP. The data is collected using
the standard procedures normally utilized by the environmental agency participating in the GSN
review. A standard set of metrics has been defined by the GSN program and is collected at each
review. The data are aggregated by NIST MEP headquarters and reported to EPA on a regular
207
-------
basis. These data can also be aggregated by sector. The data are aggregated to maintain
confidentiality for all companies participating in the program. No models or statistical methods
are employed.
EPP Center for Results. For FEC, various assumptions are used to estimate data (starting in
2006) regarding the number of desktops per employee and the average life cycle of desktops.
Also, metric calculations rely on the assumptions that: 1) the EPEAT criteria now qualifying a
product for the "bronze" level (see www.epeat.net for criteria); 2) the weight of recycled desktop
components; and 3)the commercial process for electricity will not change between 2006-2011.
For EPEAT, similar assumptions are made for the weight of plastic components and the weight
of packaging for desktops. In the future, when actual data is used to calculate environmental
benefits each year, these assumptions will no longer be necessary. Instead, the only assumptions
in effect will be that partners report accurate data and those assumptions needed for the
Calculator (to be determined) to translate environmental attributes and activities into
environmental benefits. The Environmental Benefits Calculator assists institutional purchasers
in measuring the environmental and economic benefits of purchasing environmentally preferable
products. For Janitorial Products, the method involves reporting the types of products and work
practices used during routine cleaning activities in office buildings. The Green Cleaning
Calculator assists in calculating pounds of hazardous pollution reduced.
QA/QC Procedures: All Pollution Prevention and Toxics programs operate under the
Information Quality Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines,
last accessed on July 27, 2008 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 the data adequately support the environmental benefits
described in the Green Chemistry Challenge Awards 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 added to the spreadsheet. DfE determines whether data submitted adequately support the
environmental benefits described.
Green Engineering (GE): Data will be reviewed by the partners including industry, academia,
and the regions. Data will also be reviewed by GE to ensure transparency, reasonableness and
accuracy.
Regional Offices: Data will undergo technical screening review by EPA Regional and
Headquarters staff and their contractor before being placed into Gran Track. Data for projects
208
-------
managed directly by EPA Regional staff will be reviewed by Regional personnel. Additional
QA/QC steps to be developed, as appropriate.
P2Rx: Data will undergo technical screening review by EPA and other program participants
(e.g., Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx) centers) before being placed in the
database. Additional QA/QC steps to be developed, as appropriate.
H2E Program: Data undergo technical screening review by the grantee (National Center for
Manufacturing Sciences, which administers the program through a subgrant) before being placed
in the database. QA/QC plan is a part of the grant requirement.
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): Data is collected and verified under NIST MEP's QA/QC plan.
Each NIST MEP Center must follow QA/QC requirements as grantees to the Department of
Commerce. Additionally, the environmental data are collected under the specific requirements
of the state environmental agency participating in each GSN review. Each state agency utilizes
their own QA/QC plan for data collection because they utilize the data for purposes in addition to
the GSN program.
EPP Center for Results. Regarding FEC, EPEAT, and Janitorial Products, the calculators of
environmental benefits (e.g., the Environmental Benefits Calculator and the Green Cleaning
Calculator) underwent internal and external review during their development phases. The
Environmental Benefits Calculator is still undergoing an external peer review and will not be
finalized until Fall/Winter 2006. Regarding FEC and EPEAT, instructions and guidelines are
provided to partners on how to report data. Their reporting forms are reviewed annually by EPA
management. For EPEAT, EPEAT-registered manufacturers sign a Memorandum of
Understanding in which they warrant the accuracy of the data they provide. For Janitorial
Products, contractors sign a contract stating that they are providing janitorial products according
to certain specifications. For FEC, EPEAT, and Janitorial Products, data undergo an internal
technical review before these data are run through the calculators.
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/quality/informationguidelines (last accessed on July 27, 2008) and under the
OPPT's 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/ (last accessed on July 27, 2008)
Design for the Environment (DfE): Data collected includes those from industry associations and
government reports. Source data is compared with industry trends and examined by industry and
NGO partners.
Green Engineering (GE): Data collected will be reviewed to meet data quality requirements.
209
-------
Regional Offices: The GranTrack metrics and data system incorporate ideas and system features
from the National Pollution Prevention Results System, developed with EPA support by such
organizations as the Northeast Waste Management Officials Association, Pacific Northwest
Pollution Prevention Resource Center, and National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. Data for
projects managed directly by EPA Regional staff will be reviewed by Regional personnel.
P2Rx: 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.
H2E Program: Not applicable
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): Not applicable.
EPP Center for Results. For FEC, data are entered on-line with an additional error-checking
function on the online form. The mechanism by which the EPP program is receiving data from
the Green Electronics Council is still being determined. For Janitorial Products, data quality
review steps (as of 4th quarter 2006) are still under development.
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 and/or available due to various reasons including CBI. In those instances, the data
have to be carefully evaluated and considered for reporting. If the information is included, the
uncertainties/limitations will be noted
Regional Offices: Limitations arise from the reliance on individual state and other P2 grantees
and other sources 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 changes
described below to add consistent metrics and definitions, some differences exist. EPA is
210
-------
attempting to address these concerns by strengthening reporting requirements in its P2 grants,
focusing on outcomes, and standardizing GranTrack metrics with those in the National P2
Results System. EPA is also in the process of adding a P2 component to the EPA Information
Exchange Network (which provides financial support and a comprehensive data system to link
state data with EPA).
P2Rx: 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 development of core measures and
a data dictionary, differences in reporting exist among data sources. EPA is attempting to address
these concerns by working with the groups described above who have been partners in the
development of the National Pollution Prevention Results System. EPA is also in the process of
adding a P2 component to EPA Information Exchange Network
H2E Program: Not all hospital Partners have turned in their facility assessment information.
However, in order to be considered for an award under the program, hospital Partner MUST
submit facility information; therefore, the program has a very complete set of information for
hospital Partners who have applied for awards. This introduces self-selection bias to the reported
data as the hospitals with the best track records are those that apply for the awards. The program
has roughly 10% of all Partner facilities' assessment data. An internal assessment conducted of
data collected from Partners revealed some calculation errors and data inconsistencies regarding
how waste data is captured by the hospital Partners. The program has gone back to correct some
of those errors.
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): Limitations arise from the reliance on individual programs to
gather data. These programs vary in attention to data collection from sources within their
jurisdictions, data verification and other QA/QC procedures. The GSN program has attempted to
address these concerns by strengthening the data collection requirements in the Request for
Proposals that MEP centers must be respond to in order to perform a GSN review.
EPP Center for Results. FEC and EPEAT have a built-in reliance on partners for data reporting.
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.
Design for the Environment (DfE): The program simply compiles data and does not conduct
statistical analysis. Error estimates are not available
H2E: The program does not use a statistical approach to collect the data and therefore does not
have confidence intervals for the performance estimates.
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): Not applicable.
EPP Center for Results. Any errors detected during internal technical review of performance
data submitted would be addressed, either through correction of data or elimination of data.
211
-------
New/Improved Data or Systems:
Regional Offices: EPA recently updated and expanded GranTrack, both to improve usability and
to add a much greater level of detail regarding results reported by grantees. In regard to reporting
of results, GranTrack includes activity measures, behavioral measures, and outcome measures.
The metrics chosen and their definitions generally are consistent with those used in the National
Pollution Prevention Results System, described in the P2Rx center. Also, EPA is planning to
grant the public restricted access to GranTrack. The following fields will be accessible: general
information, projects and results data, status of grant, funding, keywords, partners, and sectors.
P2Rx: This center's data collection system is currently under initial implementation through the
partnership described above.
H2E Program: The program is currently beta-testing new facility assessment software which
will help hospital Partners collect and compute facility environmental improvement data. The
software automatically converts units and tabulates information from the hospital's source data,
as well as calculating costs for different waste streams. Anticipated roll-out for the software will
be in 2007.
EPP Center for Results. FEC will use additional on-line data entry forms in 2007.
References:
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/
Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E):
http ://www. epa.gov/oppt/pollutionprevention/pubs/h2e.htm
Green Suppliers Network (GSN): www.greensuppliers.gov
EPP Center for Results. Information about FEC's annual reporting is on the FEC web site at:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/report.htm
Information about the Environmental Benefit Calculator is on the FEC web
site at:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources/docs/enbencalc.pdf
The EPEAT Subscriber and License Agreement is available on the EPEAT web
site at: http://www.epeat.net/docs/Agreement.pdf
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Reductions of hazardous chemicals per federal dollar spent (Ibs/dollar) [PART
efficiency measure]
212
-------
EPA measures the accomplishments of the Design for the Environment's (DfE) Formulator
Recognition Program by comparing reductions in hazardous chemicals achieved to program
resources, including FTE, overhead and extramural dollars spent. The Formulator Recognition
Program works with formulators of chemical-intensive products to reduce the use of hazardous
chemicals through green chemistry innovations. DfE partners provide information on levels of
reduction.
Performance Database: The DfE formulator program collects confidential data each year from
a sample of partner companies and enters the information into the formulator program tracking
component of the DfE program evaluation spreadsheet. Key data elements used to calculate the
efficiency measure are the quantity of hazardous chemicals reduced through reformulation by
product type, and spending information obtained from the OPPT Finance Central database. The
efficiency measure numerator is the sum of the average pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced
per formulation multiplied by the annual quantity of each formulation. The denominator is the
annual program resources expended.
Data Source: Partners voluntarily provide information on the pounds of hazardous chemicals
reduced per formulation and the annual production of those formulations. Resource data is from
OPPT internal sources.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data on reductions of chemicals are averaged with
information from previous years to create an average annual quantity of hazardous chemical
reduced per formulation and multiplied by the total number of formulations recognized by the
program. The result is the total annual reduction in pounds of hazardous chemicals. The method
aggregates across all formulators and assumes that the entire quantity of recognized formulations
is reformulated. Program resources are calculated directly from EPA figures. The efficiency
measure corresponds directly to the program goal of cost-effectively reducing hazardous
chemical use and can compare cost effectiveness year-to-year.
QA/QC Procedures: Design for the Environment operates under EPA's Information Quality
Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html and under the OPPT
Quality Management Plan.
Data Quality Reviews: Data undergo a technical screening review by DfE staff before being
added to the program tracking spreadsheet.
Data Limitations: The data submitted voluntarily by partners is confidential. The information
made public information is limited to aggregated values. In addition, only nine formulators are
represented in each annual sample to reduce reporting burden, which may contribute to sampling
error.
Error Estimate: Due to the sampling methodology, no error estimate is possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Each year additional data is added to the program tracking
spreadsheet and averaged with preceding years. Cumulative data will provide a more stable
estimate of total pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced through the DfE formulator program.
213
-------
References:
http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html
The DfE Program Tracking Spreadsheet for chemical formulators contains Confidential Business
Information.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Reduce water use at Performance Track facilities
• Reduce hazardous materials use at Performance Track facilities
• Reduce production of greenhouse gases at Performance Track facilities
• Reduce toxic releases to water at Performance Track facilities
• Reduce combined NOx, SOx, VOC and PM emissions at Performance Track facilities
Performance Databases: In 2003, EPA developed an electronic database, Performance Track
On-Line (a Domino database) which facilities use to electronically submit their environmental
performance data. The data are stored in Performance Track Online as well as in the
Performance Track Members Database (a Microsoft Access database).
Members report on results in a calendar year. Fiscal year 2008 data represents members'
calendar year 2007 performance. That data will be reported to the Performance Track program
by April 1, 2008. The data will then be reviewed, aggregated, and available for external
reporting in September 2008. (Calendar year 2008 data will become available in September
2009.)
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, as described below, Performance Track staff visit up to 10%
of Performance Track member facilities each year. In addition, 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 audits of their EMSs, which create a basis for confidence in the
facilities' data.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Data collected from members' applications and
annual performance reports are compiled and aggregated for the externally-reported indicators.
Performance Track members commit to two to four environmental improvements, selected from
a comprehensive list of environmental indicators. Facilities then report on their performance in
these indicators over a three-year period of participation. Because facilities choose the areas in
which they will report, the externally reported indicators (listed above) may or may not be
included in any particular facility's set of reported indicators. If a facility does not include one
or more of the above indicators as one of its commitments, then its performance for that
indicator, either positive or negative, will not be included in EPA's aggregated data for the
indicator.
214
-------
The data reflect the performance results across the entire facility, and are thus considered
"facility-wide" improvements. Members are not permitted to report on environmental
improvements for a subset of the facility; rather, the data reported must represent the
performance for the given indicator across the entire facility. Performance Track staff ensures
that all improvements are facility-wide by conducting a thorough technical review of the
submitted performance data. Any data that are determined to not reflect the entire facility's
performance is either revised or excluded from the aggregated and externally reported results.
EPA believes that this review process minimizes instances of reporting on non-facility wide
improvements.
The data are normalized for production rates or other rates of output at the facilities. Normalized
results take into account production or output changes at facilities.
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 group of facilities constantly changes. In a few instances,
members make replacement commitments due to closure of certain product lines or other major
business changes.
Due to unavoidable issues regarding the timing of the application period, a small subset of
reported data will represent performance improvements over two years for the facilities' first
reporting year.
QA/QC Procedures: Performance data submitted to the program are reviewed for completeness
and adherence to program requirements, and undergo a technical screening review by EPA and
contractor staff. The quality of the data, however, is dependent on the quality of the
measurement or estimation at the facility level. In cases where it appears possible that data is
miscalculated or misreported, EPA or contractor staff contact the facility and request resubmittal
of the data. 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.
As described, Performance Track is quality controlled to the extent possible, but is not audited in
a formal way. However, Performance Track staff visit up to 10% 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. Additionally, 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 audits of their EMSs, which increases confidence in the facilities'
data. The independent assessment became a requirement in 2004.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Potential sources of error include miscalculations, faulty data collection,
misreporting, and nonstandard reporting on the part of the facility. It is clear from submitted
215
-------
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 (through the
Performance Track On-Line system), thus avoiding the need for manual data entry. This has
also allowed for improved standardization of data collection. Additionally, the program has
implemented a new requirement that all members receive an independent assessment of their
EMSs prior to membership. Lastly, the program has reduced the chances that data may not
reflect facility-wide data by addressing 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.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• 75% of innovation projects under the State I nnovation Grant Program and other
piloting mechanisms will achieve, on average, 8.0% or greater improvement in
environmental results from a project initiation baseline measure for the sectors and
facilities (e.g., reductions in air or water discharges, improvements in ambient water
or air quality, or improvements in compliance rates) or a 5% or greater
improvement in cost-effectiveness and efficiency. I n FY08, six (6) projects will be
reaching completion, at which point they are evaluated, and the target is for five (5)
to meet the per for ma nee goal
Performance Databases: The Office of Environmental Policy Innovation (OEPI) maintains an
EPA-internal database, the "State Innovation Grant Database" (a Lotus Notes - Domino
database) to retain and organize data on competition, award and project performance for its State
Innovation Grant Program. The data base is managed by OPEI and access within the Agency
can be granted to EPA project officers and program officials. In the past, we have granted access
to this database to the Office of the Inspector General for use in a program evaluation. Data
entry is performed by staff within OEPI. Within the sections on project performance, the
database includes all available quarterly project progress reports and final project reports.
Quarterly reports are timed to the lifecycle of an individual project rather than all projects on a
fixed date. These reports include document in MS Word and WordPerfect formats as well as
spreadsheets, all generated by the State Grant recipients to track their project milestones
identified in the final project work plan. Beginning in 2006, OEPI will use the data to generate
an annual performance report for the State Innovation Grant program. The projects funded by
the grant program typically have a 2-4 year lifetime and during that period, each project reports
on a quarterly basis and provides a final project outcome report at the termination of the project.
216
-------
Projects implemented under the State Innovation Grant Program typically do not show
measurable environmental outcomes until the programs initiated under the grants are fully
implemented. For example, a State implementing an Environmental Results Program for a
particular business sector may take up to three years to develop the compliance assistance
program and operator manuals, conduct a baseline assessment of performance, implement the
compliance assistance workshops, provide adequate time for businesses to fully adopt the
program and then conduct a performance assessment for a statistical sample of hundreds of
facilities state-wide. Dates captured in the project quarterly reports provide information on
attainment of operational milestones and outputs. The final reports are expected to provide
measurement of first, second or third order outcomes to assess the success of the project. This is
significant because outcome measurement is not possible until the grant project is completed.
Only milestones and output measurements (e.g., development of a compliance handbook,
compliance assistance workshops) are available during the operation of the individual projects.
Thus, performance assessment occurs only at the end of a project. Projects we will report on in
2007 are projects initiated in 2003 and 2004.
Data Source: Data on performance are reported by the States for projects funded under the
State Innovation Grant Program. Data are collected by the States using a variety of mechanisms
depending upon the specific projects. For instance, for Environmental Results Programs (ERPs),
the State prepares a compliance manual for a specific business sector and a compliance
worksheet. Participating operators self-certify their performance using the worksheet and its
checklist. The States audit statistically random samples of the participating facilities and certify
the performance of these facilities independently. States are required to report only composite
data for these projects. Other types of projects may rely on a facility's environmental monitoring
conducted under a permit to certify performance. Only rarely are new data required for a State
Innovation Grant Program project. We rely heavily on existing performance assessments
conducted under permitting programs to assess baseline and outcome performance improvement.
For instance, the grant program has funded several facility environmental management systems
(EMS). Facilities typically have independent third-party audits of their EMSs, which create a
basis for confidence in the facilities' data. In general EPA is confident that the externally
reported results are a fair representation of members' performance.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Performance assessment methods will vary across
project types in this program. For instance, ERPs focus on improvement in compliance rates and
program efficiency. Compliance rates are determined by a statistically-based sample audit of
participating facilities within an ERP sector by the State. Currently, the State Innovation Grant
program is sponsoring ERP projects in a number of business sectors (dry cleaning, printing, auto
body repair, auto salvage, Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), Injection Wells, Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), Oil and Gas well drilling and operation, dental facility
mercury management, etc). Some of these facilities will report compliance based upon
operational processes. Others may be able to go beyond compliance reporting and provide
estimates of pollution prevention (e.g., pounds of mercury recovered from dental amalgam).
Other project types, such as Environmental Management Systems will typically will utilize
facility monitoring protocols developed for their permits and use those to develop assessments of
217
-------
improvements in emissions and discharges. Where EMS-driven projects also develop
engineering estimates of improvements in pollutant discharges brought about by manufacturing
changes, those estimates would require verification related to any alteration in permits.
Analysts should bear in mind that these projects almost never produce incremental
improvements across their lifetime (e.g., in a 3-year project, one third of the projects proposed
benefits will not occur in each year. Rather, project outcomes are generally measurable only at
the completion of the project which marks full implementation. In a number of instances, full
implementation may require time beyond the grant-funded project period. In these instances we
have sought commitments from recipient-states to continue measuring performance and
reporting to EPA after the grant project itself has been completed. The significant impact on the
State Innovation Grant program is that outcomes reported in any year will reflect completion of
projects initiated 2-4 years earlier and not incremental benefits during the lifetime of a project.
Thus, reporting of outcomes in 2007 will be based upon projects funded in FY 2003 and FY
2004.
QA/QC Procedures: Each project funded under the State Innovation Grant Program is
required to develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that is compliant with EPA
guidance. The QAPP is reviewed by the designated QA official from the appropriate EPA
Region and OEPI's QA reviewer. States must have an approved QAPP before the beginning of
any data collection. OEPI has prepared guidance for state grant recipients on development of
performance measures and quality assurance plans. OEPI also requires participation by each
new state grant recipient in an annual training workshop that addresses these areas. Additionally,
final project reports will be made available to other States and to the public for examination.
EPA is also a partner with State Innovation Grant recipients in the conduct of open forums for
discussion of projects, such as the ERP All-States Meeting held annually to allow open
examination of progress and results in each of the ERP projects.
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.
Manually entered data are sometimes typed incorrectly.
Because States are required to submit only synoptic (or meta) data with regard to program
performance, we rely on the States to apply the appropriate steps to ensure data accuracy and
appropriateness of analysis as described in their QAPP. In 2007, OEPI will initiate a post-award
monitoring program that will include steps to audit reporting under the State Innovation grant
Program.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
References: Information on the State Innovation Grant Program, including State pre-proposals
and final workplans can be found on the program website at:
http:/www.epa.gov/innovation/stategrants. OEPI anticipates publication of its first State
Innovation Grants Program progress report in early 2007.
218
-------
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2008 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 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 -
"Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country." EPA staff use the Objective
5.3 Reporting System to establish program performance commitments for future fiscal years and
to record actual program performance for overall national program management. The Objective
5.3 Reporting System serves as the performance database for all of the annual performance
measures and PART measures.
Data Source: Data for the Objective 5.3 Reporting System are input on an ongoing basis by
Regional tribal program project officers, as designated by the Regional Indian Coordinators. All
persons authorized to input data have individual passwords.
The original documents for the statements and data entered into the fields of the Objective 5.3
Reporting System can be found in the files of the Regional Tribal Project Officers overseeing the
particular programs that are being reported on. For example, documents that verify water quality
monitoring activities by a particular tribe will be found in the files of the Regional Water 106
Project Officer for the tribe.
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-reviewed monitoring and assessment
occurring (cumulative)," reports the number of active Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs).
219
-------
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, "Percent of Tribes with EPA approved multi-media workplans,"
tracks the number of tribes with: Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs); Tribal Environmental
Agreements (TEAs), Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III; Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs); and
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), which demonstrate Tribe building. 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, "Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian Country
per million dollars," is calculated annually by summing the number of tribes receiving General
Assistance Program (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.
(www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/index.html)
Data Quality Reviews: The certifying official for the information submitted by EPA's Regional
offices to AIEO through the Objective 5.3 reporting System is the Regional Administrator.
However, in some cases the Regional Administrator may wish to delegate the signatory authority
to some other official such as the Regional Indian Coordinator. The Regional Administrator or
his/her designee will be responsible for certifying that the information in the Objective 5.3
Reporting System, and hence the information which supports the performance measures and
proposed PART measures is accurate. This procedure generally follows guidance provided in
EPA Information Quality Guidelines. (http://www.epa.gov/quality/information
guidelines/index.html)
Data Limitations: Because data are input by EPA's Regional Project Officers on an ongoing
basis, there may be slippages between the time a tribal program status has been achieved and the
220
-------
entering of that data into the Objective 5.3 Reporting System. Even though the Regional Project
Officer may enter data on an ongoing basis, at the end of the reporting cycle the Objective 5.3
Reporting System will be "locked down," with the locked dataset reported for the fiscal year.
EPA's Regional Administrator certifies the accuracy of the locked information
Error Estimate: For the Objective 5.3 Reporting System, errors could occur by mis-entering
data or neglecting to enter data. However, the data from each region will be certified as accurate
at the end of each reporting cycle; error is estimated to be low, about 1-2 percent.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The Objective 5.3 Reporting System, is a part of the AIEO
Tribal Program Enterprise Architecture, and is a part of the same Life Cycle milestones of that
system. Presently, plans are to focus on Operations and Maintenance activities for the Tribal
Program Enterprise Architecture beginning FY08.
References:
Objective 5.3 Reporting System: https://iasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TATS/tats_prv/entry_page
User id Hue
Password testl
OCFO Information Quality Guidelines: http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.htm
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Average time to hire non-SES positions from date vacancy closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in working days [PART efficiency measure]
The data are expressed in the following manner: Average number of days (where the time
to extend an offer for each vacancy is averaged); EPA's fiscal year goal is 45-days
Database: Data are derived from EZ-Hire. This is the database that applicants use to apply for
jobs at EPA. This data are tracked internally and reported on a fiscal year and quarterly basis.
The data are reported by the servicing human resources office and rolled up into Agency-wide
averages.
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. OHR uses EZ-Hire to generate a raw data report on a quarterly basis (after the
quarter has been completed). The data are downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet and are tracked
by vacancy announcement number and formatted into the various components of the Office of
Personnel Management's (OPM) 45-day Hiring Model. OHR staff review the results, and
identify any anomalies that may need further investigation. The draft report is then sent to the
servicing HR Offices so the data can be validated, corrected, and ultimately transferred to the
OHR to be finalized. HR Offices also work with the Selecting Officials to develop explanatory
justifications for those vacancies which exceeded the 45-day timeframe.
221
-------
QA/QC Procedures: EZ-Hire tracks vacancy announcement activity from the time the
announcement opens until a job offer is made to a candidate by the Selecting Official.
Data Quality Reviews: OHR staff review and analyze the raw data, prior to it being provided to
the HR Offices for validation. Local HR Offices review and validate the data, identify anomalies
or data-entry errors, make corrections, and provide the updated information to OHR so that the
report can be finalized. Questions about the data or resolution of issues of concern are frequently
resolved through discussion and consultation with OHR.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: EZ-Hire system provides adequate data for analysis of the
average time to hire for non-Senior Executive Service (SES) applicants. However, we anticipate
the need for additional programming (to be done by the EZ-Hire Contractor) to enable the
system to track additional data required by OPM.
References: EZ-Hire
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Average time to hire SES positions from date vacancy closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in working days
These data are tracked manually on a weekly basis and reported on a quarterly basis. The data
are reported by servicing human resources office and are expressed as an average number of
days (where the time to extend an offer for each vacancy is averaged for that servicing HR
office)
Performance Database: Data are manually maintained by the Executive Resources Staff (ERS)
in a Word format. Data are updated thorough-out the various stages of the hiring process.
Data Source: The Office of Human Resources' Executive Resources Staff.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data from the weekly report are tracked and reported
quarterly. ERS staff reviews the results and further investigates any data anomalies prior to
finalizing the quarterly report.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are added as vacancy status changes. The weekly report is reviewed
by the ERS Team leader. Questions about the data or resolution of issues of concern are
frequently resolved through discussion and consultation within the team.
222
-------
Data Quality Reviews: ERS staff review and analyze the raw data, prior to being provided to
the Team leader for validation. The Team leader reviews the data, identifies anomalies or data-
entry errors, and provides the updated information to OHR so that the report can be finalized.
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: The current system is sufficient for tracking the SES hiring
activities, given the small number of positions filled annually, about 12 per year.
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Percent increase in the number of non-SES managers and supervisors at the
targeted proficiency level (intermediate) for Interpersonal Skills and Oral
Communication
• Percent increase in the number of non-SES managers and supervisors at the
targeted proficiency level (advanced) for Interpersonal Skills and Oral Communication
Database: EPA will use an OPM-supplied database and assessment tool. The database is
populated with competency/skills of federal leaders that are deemed necessary for successful
performance. It includes survey data resulting from employee self-assessments and supervisory
assessments on employee HRM competency/skills.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Survey data will be used to identify current
competency/skills of the Agency's leadership population. Assessment data will be compared to
the competency/skills EPA determines are necessary for mission accomplishment to arrive at a
baseline assessment.
Yearly competency assessments of Agency leaders will be completed and compared to the
baseline.
QA/QC Procedures: The Office of Human Resources will utilize a skills assessment to
determine if the individual leader is making progress in reaching the targeted level of proficiency
level. The assessment will include input from various sources (e.g. peers and supervisors).
Leaders may also provide self reports on their own progress.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: A true assessment of progress is contingent on obtaining independent,
verifiable information which describes the progress made. In the arena of competency
assessment/human behavior, only a handful of such tools exist for which the results are valid,
verifiable and reliable. In addition, competency development efforts are multifaceted (including
training, development assignments, mentoring, and others). Participation in these types of
programs is essential to the overall competency building effort.
223
-------
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems:
In FY2006, EPA used the Devine Inventory for a baseline assessment of career SES. For the
remaining leaders, the Agency will transition from the baseline instrument, Devine Inventory, to
another, yet to be selected, and an emphasis will be placed on making a smooth transition on
assessment use.
References: EPA 's Business Case for Leadership as Mission-Critical Occupation for Ql, FY06.
There are no prior data or references available for the actual competency/skills assessment tool.
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption in EPA's 29 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 2008 Performance Measures:
224
-------
• Number of major EPA environmental systems that use the CDX electronic
requirements enabling faster receipt, processing, and quality checking of data.
• Number of states, tribes, and territories that will be able to exchange data with CDX
through nodes in real time, using standards and automated data-quality checking.
• Number of users from states, tribes, laboratories, and others that choose CDX to
report environmental data electronically to EPA.
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. The records of registration provide an up-to-date, accurate count of users. Users
identify themselves with several descriptors and use a number of CDX security mechanisms for
ensuring the integrity of individuals' identities.
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:
Charles Freeman 202-566-1694] to incorporate new technology and policy requirements and will
undergo another revision by December 2006. 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 completed its last independent security risk assessment in January
2005, and all vulnerabilities are being reviewed or addressed. In addition, routine audits of CDX
data collection procedures, statistics 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. In addition, environmental data
collected by CDX is delivered to National data systems in the Agency. Upon receipt, the
National systems often conduct a more thorough data quality assurance procedure based on more
intensive rules that can be continuously changing based on program requirements. As a result,
225
-------
CDX and these National systems appropriately share the responsibility for ensuring
environmental data quality.
Error Estimate: CDX incorporates a number of features to reduce errors in registration data
and that contribute greatly to the quality of environmental data entering the Agency. These
features include pre-populating data either from CDX or National systems, conducting web-form
edit checks, implementing XML schemas for basic edit checking and providing extended quality
assurance checks for selected Exchange Network Data flows using Schematron. The potential
error in registration data, under CDX responsibility has been assessed to be less than 1 %.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: CDX assembles the registration/submission
requirements of many different data exchanges with EPA and the States, Tribes, local
governments and the regulated community into a centralized environment. This system improves
performance tracking of external customers and overall management by making those processes
more consistent and comprehensive. 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 additional automated quality assurance procedures for the system and reduce human
error.
References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).
FY 2008 Performance Measure:
• Percent of Federal Information Security Management Act reportable systems that
are certified and accredited.
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
226
-------
toward these milestones. EPA's information security staff review these self-reported data,
conduct independent validation of a sample, and discuss anomalies with the submitting office.
Data Limitations: Resources constrain the security staffs ability to validate all of the self-
reported compliance data submitted by program systems' managers.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
Annual Information Security Reports to OMB: http://intranet.epa.gov/itsecurity/progreviews/:
OMB guidance memorandum: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/2003.html:
ASSERT web site: https://cfint.rtpnc.epa.gov/assert/; NIST Special Publication 800-26, Security
Self Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems, November 2001:
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/index.html: and, Federal Information Security
Management Act, PL 107-347: http://csrc.nist.gov/policies/FISMA_final.pdf
FY 2008 Performance Measures:
• Environmental and business actions taken for improved performance or risk reduction;
environmental and business recommendations or risks identified for corrective action;
and return on the annual dollar investment, as a percentage of the OIG budget, from
audits and investigations
• Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions
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. OIG performance measures are
designed to demonstrate value added by promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and
preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse as described by the Inspector General Act of
1978 (as amended). Because intermediate and long-term results may not be realized for several
years, only verifiable results are reported in the year completed. Database measures include
numbers of: 1) recommendations for environmental and management improvement; 2)
legislative, regulatory policy, directive, or process changes; 3) environmental, program
management, security and resource integrity risks identified, reduced, or eliminated; 4) best
practices identified and implemented; 5) examples of environmental and management
improvements made; 6) monetary value of funds questioned, saved, fined, or recovered; 7)
criminal, civil, and administrative actions taken, 8) public or congressional inquiries resolved;
and 9) certifications, allegations disproved, and cost corrections.
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.
227
-------
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 General17, 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.
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 and difficulty in verifying a nexus between our work and subsequent actions and
impacts beyond our control. 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 constantly revises the clarity and quality of the
measures as well as system improvements for ease of use. During FY 2006, we gave staff
briefings on the application of OIG measures and the OIG Performance Measurement and
Results System. We expect the quality of the data to continue improving as staff gain greater
familiarity with the system and measures, and we will enhance this system by linking it to a
follow-up process to better track actions and impacts. We also anticipate creating linkages to
customer satisfaction results and resource investments, to provide a full-balanced scorecard with
return on investment information for accountability and decision making.
17Government Auditing Standards (2003 Revision), General Accounting Office, GAO-03-673G, June 2003;
Available on the Internet at www.gao.gov/govaud/ybk01.htm, last updated December 18, 2006
228
-------
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.18
18 U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Evaluations, and Other Publications,
Available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/oig, last updated December 12, 2006
229
------- |