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) 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
requests $7.1 billion in discretionary budget authority and 17,217.0 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 2009 is on several areas: biodefense research, 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 multiple incidents of national
significance. Part of these FY 2009 efforts will continue to include activities that support the
Water Security Initiative (WSI) and assist in improving response capabilities through specialized
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) training, state-of-the-art field and analytical equipment,
and increased technical knowledge relating to chemical, biological, and radiological substances.
Human Capital
EPA will continue to develop workforce planning strategies that link current and future Human
Capital needs to mission accomplishment which will result in significant reductions in skills 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 part, EPA also will continue to target developmental resources to retain a highly-
skilled and results-oriented workforce with the right mix of technical expertise, professional
I/O- 1
-------
experience and leadership capabilities. A sound, sustained and strategic approach toward HC
will assure EPA and its workforce has sustained mission success.
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 2009, 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
2009 EPA proposed to reduce its Agency authorized FTE ceiling by approximately 89.5
positions (below the FY 2008 Enacted FTE Ceiling) to 17,217.0, 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.
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 ($s)
• Goal, Appropriation Summary (FTEs)
Program Project by Appropriation (EPM, ST, STAG, IG, BF, SF, LUST & OIL)
• Resources for Appropriation
• Annotated Bill Language by Appropriation
o Resource Table by Appropriation, Program Area, Program Project
I/O-2
-------
o Program Project Fact Sheets (the following included within each factsheet)
• Resource Chart ($s, FTEs)
• Program Project Description
• FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan
• PART Highlight Information
• Performance Targets
. FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 President's Budget
• Statutory Authority
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
• Verification and Validation
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
• Program/Projects by Program Area (Detailed)
• Discontinued Programs - WOT, WQCA, TWG
• E-Gov Summaries
I/O-3
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2009 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 2009 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 2007
Actuals
$728,339.9
$2,321,877.0
$32,288.4
$39,044.3
$16,185.2
$1,310,820.8
$12,286.2
$29,312.3
$1,352,419.3
$83,673.9
$3,337,543.9
$7,911,371.9
$0.0
$7,911,371.9
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
FY 2008
Enacted
$760,084.0
$2,327,962.0
$41,099.0
$34,258.0
$17,056.0
$1,216,794.0
$11,486.0
$25,718.0
$1,253,998.0
$105,816.0
$2,937,051.0
$7,477,324.0
($5,000.0)
$7,472,324.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$763,527.0
$2,338,353.0
$39,483.0
$35,001.0
$17,687.0
$1,230,652.0
$7,164.0
$26,417.0
$1,264,233.0
$72,284.0
$2,621,952.0
$7,152,520.0
($10,000.0)
$7,142,520.0
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
Full-time Equivalents (FTE)
Science & Technology
Science and Tech. - Reim
Environmental Program &
Management
Envir. Program & Mgmt - Reim
Inspector General
Oil Spill Response
Oil Spill Response - Reim
Super fund Program
IG Transfer
S&T Transfer
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Superfund Reimbursables
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks
FEMA - Reim
WCF-REIMB
Rereg. & Exped. Proc. Rev Fund
Pesticide Registration Fund
SUB-TOTAL, EPA
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2007
Actuals
2,425.9
3.2
10,652.2
32.3
223.7
90.7
9.3
2,958.7
83.8
104.5
3,147.0
102.9
67.3
2.2
111.5
144.2
59.5
17,071.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
2,405.8
3.0
10,867.0
1.5
287.7
102.2
0.0
3,056.8
44.1
105.0
3,205.9
77.5
75.3
0.0
110.7
187.2
0.0
17,323.8
FY 2008
Enacted
2,405.8
3.0
10,849.7
1.5
259.8
102.2
0.0
3,056.8
72.0
105.0
3,233.8
77.5
75.3
0.0
110.7
187.2
0.0
17,306.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
2,387.5
3.0
10,796.1
0.0
287.7
102.2
0.0
3,031.7
44.1
110.0
3,185.8
75.5
75.3
0.0
116.7
187.2
0.0
17,217.0
17,071.9
17,323.8
17,306.5
17,217.0
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Goal and Objective Overview
GOAL, APPROPRIATION SUMMARY 3
Budget Authority 3
Clean Air and Global Climate Change 5
Clean and Safe Water 10
Land Preservation and Restoration 14
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 20
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 30
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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 2007
Actuals
$896,120.0
$450,222.1
$197,385.5
$8,615.6
$232,846.4
$4,155.8
$2,894.7
$3,195,855.0
$476,552.9
$125,267.3
$5,985.0
$2,570,904.0
$17,145.7
$1,783,171.9
$215,305.2
$11,638.0
$4,602.1
$134,110.3
$83,673.9
$16,185.2
$2,098.5
$1,315,558.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$910,364.6
$438,093.2
$216,316.5
$7,636.6
$239,194.0
$5,550.1
$3,574.2
$2,714,506.8
$454,199.6
$150,194.4
$5,309.6
$2,085,766.0
$19,037.2
$1,662,989.5
$220,341.8
$12,367.4
$4,270.1
$125,620.0
$72,461.0
$17,280.0
$2,659.0
$1,207,990.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$971,739.4
$435,919.9
$224,039.8
$7,514.4
$294,606.0
$6,185.4
$3,474.0
$2,854,781.9
$462,519.5
$139,019.7
$5,224.6
$2,227,415.0
$20,603.2
$1,688,592.2
$214,681.4
$12,196.1
$4,201.8
$115,023.0
$105,816.0
$17,056.0
$2,871.8
$1,216,746.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$938,582.3
$444,555.5
$220,394.6
$7,732.2
$256,174.0
$6,047.6
$3,678.4
$2,580,704.2
$464,561.4
$148,109.0
$5,241.9
$1,943,712.0
$19,080.0
$1,691,127.9
$221,595.9
$15,301.1
$4,376.0
$126,146.0
$72,284.0
$17,687.0
$2,840.2
$1,230,897.7
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$1,288,596.5
$620,678.4
$345,300.8
$13,996.9
$290,025.9
$5,886.9
$12,707.5
$747,628.5
$559,118.4
$48,748.3
$5,844.6
$109,657.3
$3,001.5
$21,258.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,174,061.5
$621,787.6
$332,682.3
$12,167.4
$192,117.0
$6,863.1
$8,444.2
$742,477.6
$563,765.8
$42,945.5
$5,417.3
$101,753.0
$3,898.6
$24,697.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,227,362.5
$652,643.1
$342,403.5
$11,947.2
$204,616.0
$7,490.6
$8,262.1
$734,848.0
$562,198.2
$42,425.0
$5,369.9
$95,391.0
$3,948.1
$25,515.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$1,191,003.6
$628,315.8
$338,843.1
$12,242.3
$196,417.0
$7,338.3
$7,847.1
$751,102.0
$579,324.5
$40,879.2
$5,408.5
$99,503.0
$4,177.0
$21,809.8
Sub-Total
Rescission of Prior Year Funds
Total
$7,911,371.9
$7,911,371.9
$7,204,400.0
$7,477,324.0 $7,152,520.0
$7,204,400.0 $7,477,324.0 $7,152,520.0
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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.
• By 2012, 160 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of emissions will be
reduced through EPA's voluntary climate protection programs.
• Through 2012, provide sound science to support EPA's goal of clean air by conducting
leading-edge research and developing a better understanding and characterization of
human health and environmental outcomes.
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Clean Air and Global Climate
Change
Healthier Outdoor Air
Healthier Indoor Air
Protect the Ozone Layer
FY 2007
Actuals
$896,120.0
$572,756.3
$45,342.4
$19,578.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$910,364.6
$587,200.0
$45,841.6
$17,120.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$971,739.4
$644,090.6
$45,581.9
$16,865.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$938,582.3
$616,455.8
$43,502.4
$17,463.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($33,157.1)
($27,634.8)
($2,079.5)
$598.3
-------
Radiation
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
Enhance Science and Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$35,584.1
$128,736.6
$94,122.0
2,597.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,085.5
$122,819.6
$98,297.0
2,610.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$38,254.1
$130,092.3
$96,855.2
2,608.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$41,396.8
$121,063.3
$98,700.4
2,628.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,142.7
($9,029.0)
$1,845.2
19.3
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. These programs are all founded on several common
principles: using health and environmental risks to set priorities, streamlining programs through
regulatory reforms; encouraging market-based approaches; facilitating deployment of cost-
effective technologies; promoting energy efficiency and clean energy supply; using sound
science, and maintaining partnerships with states, Tribes, local governments, non-governmental
organizations, and industry.
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, the Clean
Air Mercury Rule and the 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. In FY 2009, EPA will continue to work with the
states and industry to implement these rules.
In addition to the Clean Air Rules, EPA will address emission reductions through the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Grants program authorized in sections 791-797 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005. This program will provide immediate emission reductions from existing diesel engines
through engine retrofits, rebuilds and replacements, switching to cleaner fuels, idling reduction
strategies and other clean diesel strategies that can reduce paniculate matter (PM) emissions up
to 95 percent, smog-forming emissions, such as hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, up to 90
percent and greenhouse gases up to 20 percent. In FY 2009, EPA will issue and manage various
categories of Diesel Emission Reduction grants, including grants to target diesel emissions in
ports.
-------
Energy
The Administration has a diverse portfolio of policy measures - including mandatory, incentive-
based, and voluntary programs - to meet the President's goal to reduce the greenhouse gas
(GHG) intensity of the U.S. economy by 18 percent by 2012. The President has set a goal of
reducing U.S. gasoline usage by 20 percent in the next ten years to lessen the nation's
dependence on imported oil. EPA has a substantial role to play in advancing the President's
energy and climate strategies, given the Agency's mandate for environmental protection and the
close linkage of energy and environment issues.
Ongoing efforts are already very significant. For example, EPA's current efforts will contribute
about 70% of the reductions necessary to meet the President's 2012 GHG intensity goal.
Moreover, EPA's efforts can and will achieve remarkable results in a number of other critical
areas. By the end of 2008, for example, EPA expects to have programs in place that will speed
the development of lower-emissions coal, oil, gas, and renewable technologies; partner with the
manufacturing sector to develop more energy efficient technologies; and create the framework
needed to transform our transportation system from one almost solely reliant on petroleum to one
that accommodates an array of alternate fuels.
In 2009, EPA will begin implementation activities associated with the new GHG rules for fuels
and vehicles, which will be completed at the start of FY 2009. Needed implementation activities
will include upgrading and expanding vehicle engine and fuel data systems to incorporate new
data and handle certification, compliance, reporting and tracking requirements; developing and
implementing means to validate credit trading; implementing the fuel quality compliance
program including field sampling and lab analysis; and stakeholder outreach. In addition to
these implementation activities, the NVFEL will need to begin certifying alternative fuels and
vehicles.
By FY 2009, U.S. energy production is expected to grow by almost 10% from FY 2005 levels.
To help ensure clean and affordable energy, EPA will enhance related permitting efforts.
Anticipated upcoming proposals include 75,000 new oil and gas wells on Tribal and Federal
Land, 40 liquefied natural gas terminals, 100+ re-permitting for nuclear power plants and 25 new
nuclear plants.
This expansion in the energy sector will result in increased workload for: air and waters
modeling and monitoring to determine the ambient impacts of energy activities; analysis of
emerging technologies such as carbon sequestration, tidal, wind, biomass, coal liquefaction and
oil shale; effective and early collaboration among states, tribes and Federal agencies to expedite
NEPA reviews; and, EPA direct implementation of air and water permitting activity on
state/Tribal lands where the programs are not authorized and on Federal lands and offshore areas
where the program cannot be authorized.
In FY 2009, EPA and states will begin to fulfill the mandate of the Energy Policy Act to increase
development of domestic energy resources and meet the demands of the large increase in new
energy exploration while ensuring environmentally sound decision-making. This will involve
support for state and tribal work to ensure effective and efficient analysis and permitting to avoid
-------
slowing the pace of new energy projects. The FY 2009 Budget Request includes $14.0 million
to support Permitting for Energy Production.
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 those techniques and
other actions they can take 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. The FY 2009
Budget Request for the Reduce Risk from Indoor Air program totals $19.9 million. 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 to radon resistant new construction. Radon is second only to smoking as a
cause of lung cancer. The FY 2009 Budget Request for the Radon programs totals $14.0 million.
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, spurred investment in clean energy development, and reduced
emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases with very high global
warming potentials. These partnership programs break down market barriers and promote the
deployment of cost-effective technologies and processes designed to yield greenhouse gas
reductions over the life of the investment. In FY 2009, EPA will continue to work with other
countries and government agencies to support the Methane to Markets Partnership and Asia-
Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. The FY 2009 Budget Request for the
Climate Protection programs totals $98.3 million.
Stratospheric Ozone - Domestic and Montreal Protocol
In FY 2009, EPA's Domestic Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program will continue to
implement the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol), and contribute 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, including prevention of 6.3 million cases of fatal skin
cancer in the US. The FY 2009 Budget Request for the Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic program
totals $4.7 million. In addition, through the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol, EPA will
invest in 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-upon project
activities have been implemented to date, with remaining work in these already agreed-upon
projects expected to be fully implemented by 2009. The FY 2009 Budget Request for the
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund totals $9.9 million.
Radiation Monitoring
In FY 2009, EPA will continue upgrading the national radiation monitoring system to expand the
population and geographic areas covered, and to increase the speed at which the system samples
the air, analyzes the measurements, and transmits the results. Mobile transportable monitors will
be maintained in ready condition so they can be quickly deployed to monitor radiation levels at
locations near and downwind from the initial point of release. The Agency will continue to
enhance laboratory response capacity and capability to ensure a minimal level of surge capacity
for radiological incidents.
Research
EPA conducts research to provide a scientific foundation for the Agency's actions to protect the
air all Americans breathe. The Agency's air research program supports implementation of the
Clean Air Act, especially the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which set
limits on how much stratospheric ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and lead, are allowed in the atmosphere. EPA also conducts research on ozone
and hazardous air pollutants, also known as air toxics.
In FY 2009, 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. In FY 2009, the program will continue to focus on the effects of air pollution near
roads on human health, as well as the development and evaluation of effective mitigation
strategies. The Agency also will fund research grants to universities and nonprofits to study
topics such as the relationship between long-term exposure to fine particles in the atmosphere
and the frequency and progression of pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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 Science and
Research
Total Authorized
Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$3,195,855.0
$1,157,573.7
$1,912,954.7
$125,326.6
2,854.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,714,506.8
$1,156,551.7
$1,422,049.0
$135,906.1
2,901.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,854,781.9
$1,183,199.2
$1,536,958.8
$134,623.9
2,901.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$2,580,704.2
$1,161,766.0
$1,286,409.9
$132,528.3
2,863.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($274,077.7)
($21,433.2)
($250,548.9)
($2,095.6)
-37.6
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 2009, 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 important progress in these areas and support additional
10
-------
focused water initiatives, including carbon sequestration, energy permitting, water security, and
sustainable infrastructure.
The National Water Program will continue to place special emphasis on 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. In FY 2009, 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. Related efforts to improve monitoring
and surveillance will help advance water security nationwide.
Drinking Water
During FY 2009, EPA, the states and community water systems will build on past successes
while working toward the F Y 2009 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. In
FY 2009, states and EPA will process Underground Injection Control permit applications for
experimental carbon sequestration and gather information from these pilots to facilitate the
permitting of large-scale commercial carbon sequestration in the future. To help ensure that
water is safe to drink, EPA provides $842.2 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund.
Clean Water
In FY 2009, 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. To keep pace with the nation's burgeoning
energy exploration and development, EPA will place an increased focus on energy related
permitting in FY 2009. The work involves NPDES permit actions related to conventional oil and
gas, coalbed methane, coal mining, ethanol, power plants, refineries, uranium, natural gas
liquids, liquefied natural gas terminals, pipelines, and oil shale/tar sands.
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 the
nation's waters. These efforts are resulting in scientifically defensible water quality data and
11
-------
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). In FY 2009 EPA will
provide $555.0 million and will allow EPA to meet the Administration's capitalization target of
$6.8 billion total for 2004-2011 and enable the program to meet its long-term revolving target of
$3.4 billion.
Homeland Security
EPA has a major role in supporting the protection of the nation's critical water infrastructure
from terrorist threats. In FY 2009, EPA will continue to support the Water Security Initiative
(WSI) 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 2009 budget provides $35.2 million for water security efforts. This includes $22.6 million
for WSI and WATR which will continue efforts 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. In FY 2009, there will be increased training and outreach exercises
for Regional Water Emergency Response/Technical Assistance Team members, consistent with
the National Approach to Response. Also, the Agency, in collaboration with our water sector
security stakeholders, will continue 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 2009, 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
treatment strategies, exposure and analytical methods, and health effects information that can be
applied to classes of contaminants in the context of the drinking water hydrologic cycle - source
water, treatment, and distribution. The water quality research program will continue providing
approaches and methods the Agency and its partners need to develop and apply criteria to
support designated uses, support implementation of watershed management approaches, and
application of technological options to restore and protect water bodies using information on
effective treatment and management alternatives. 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 FY 2009 will include: 1) studies on aquifer storage and
recovery (ASR) on the safety of drinking water and the impacts of subsurface carbon dioxide
12
-------
(CC>2) storage on drinking water quality; 2) revising aquatic life guidelines, recreational water
criteria, the effects of emerging contaminants, nutrients, biocriteria and multiple stressor effects
on stream biota; 3) watershed management work that supports diagnoses of impairment,
mitigation and pollutant load reduction from headwater streams and isolated wetlands; and
4) improving the control of microbial releases from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
during periods of significant wet weather events.
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.
13
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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 2007
Actuals
$1,783,171.9
$235,637.7
$1,497,066.2
$50,468.1
4,514.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,662,989.5
$231,785.2
$1,382,689.3
$48,515.1
4,579.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,688,592.2
$237,813.1
$1,403,339.5
$47,439.6
4,574.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$1,691,127.9
$232,718.3
$1,405,042.6
$53,367.1
4,550.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,535.7
($5,094.8)
$1,703.1
$5,927.5
-24.1
Land is one of America's most valuable resources. If they are not controlled, hazardous and
non-hazardous 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 with the following approaches—
prevention, protection, and response activities to address risks posed by releases of harmful
substances on land; emergency preparedness, response and homeland security to address
14
-------
immediate risks to human health and the environment; enforcement and compliance 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 2009, the Agency is requesting $1,637.8 million to continue to apply the most
effective approach to preserve and restore land 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 2009, 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) provides legal authority for EPA's work to protect the land. 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. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) also provides legal authority for EPA to fulfill this goal. 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 non-hazardous waste.
In addition, EPA 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 2009, 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 2009:
Revitalization; Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy Recovery; and implementation of the
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
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/,
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/. http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/. http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/ and
http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/landrevitalization.
15
-------
Underground Storage Tanks) and their partners are taking proactive steps to facilitate the
cleanup and revitalization of contaminated properties. In FY 2009, the Agency is requesting
$914.8 million to help communities revitalize these once productive properties 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,
EPA recently adopted a series of acres-based, cross-program revitalization measures
(CPRMs)2 to help document progress in cleaning up and promoting the protective use of
previously contaminated land. The CPRMs will help EPA communicate the extent of land
subject to its cleanup programs, and the subset of that land that is protective for people for
current conditions, and that is ready (i.e., protective) for anticipated future uses. EPA
cleanup programs began implementing these new measures in FY 2007. Data from the
CPRMs will be available in FY 2008 and beyond.
Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy Recovery: EPA is requesting $10.8 million in
FY 2009 to support EPA's strategy for reducing waste generation and increasing recycling.
EPA's strategy 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 2009, EPA will continue the Resource Conservation
Challenge (RCC) as a major national effort to find flexible, yet more protective ways to
conserve our valuable natural resources through waste reduction, energy recovery, and
recycling. Through RCC, the Agency also will pursue the advancement of alternative
domestic energy sources as well as clean energy, which power our economy and drive our
environmental successes.
Implementing the EPAct: The EPAct3 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 2007, working with its tank
partners, EPA developed grant guidelines4 which implement the UST provisions of the
EPAct. In FY 2009, EPA is requesting $35.1 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 facilities5, and (4) secondary containment or financial responsibility for tank
manufacturers and installers. EPA also is submitting 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
2 For more information on the CPRMs, go to http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/landrevitalization/docs/cprmguidance-
10-20-06covermemo.pdf.
3 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).
4 For more information, refer to http://www.epa. gov/OUST
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.
16
-------
costly alternative to meet the objectives of the EPAct. EPA also will continue implementing
the UST Tribal strategy6 developed in FY 2006 in Indian country.
In addition to these themes, EPA's Homeland Security and Enforcement work are important
components of the Agency's prevention, protection, and response activities.
Homeland Security
EPA will continue to improve its emergency preparedness and response capability, including
homeland security capabilities. In FY 2009, the Agency is requesting $54.6 million to improve
its capability to respond effectively to incidents that may involve harmful chemical, oil,
biological, and radiological substances. The Agency will provide training to build the cadre of
volunteers in the Response Support Corps (RSC) and/or as part of an Incident Management
Team (EVIT) and also will continue to participate in multi-agency training and exercises.
In FY 2009, EPA will build the Environmental Laboratory Response Network (eLRN) through
the improvement of an electronic data deliverable for use by all eLRN laboratories. EPA also
will continue to maximize the effectiveness of its involvement in national security events
through pre-deployments of assets such as emergency response personnel and field detection
equipment.
EPA also will maintain and improve the Emergency Management Portal (EMP). FY 2009 will
be the first year for complete integration of the basic management modules (i.e., environmental
assessment, equipment, personnel, and decontamination). EPA will continue to manage, collect,
and validate new information for new and existing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) agents
as new decontamination techniques are developed or as other information emerges from the
scientific community.
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. In FY 2009, the Agency is
requesting $173.9 million to support enforcement activities at Federal and non-Federal
Superfund sites. The Superfund program's "enforcement first" policy ensures that sites with
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 and make sites available for appropriate reuse.7 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.
6 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.
7 For more information regarding EPA's enforcement program and its various components, please refer to
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/.
17
-------
EPA also works to ensure that required legally enforceable institutional controls and financial
assurance instruments are in place and adhered to at Superfund sites and at facilities subject to
RCRA Corrective Action to ensure the long-term protectiveness of cleanup actions.
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.8
In FY 2009, the Agency will continue to establish and use Special Accounts within the
Superfund Trust Fund. As of the end of FY 2007, EPA maintains more than 700 Special
Accounts within the Superfund Trust Fund. These accounts segregate site-specific funds
obtained from responsible parties that enter into settlement agreements with EPA. These funds
may create an incentive for other PRPs at that specific site to perform cleanup work. In addition,
these funds may be used by the Agency to fund cleanup activities if there are no known or viable
PRPs. The Agency will practice good fiscal stewardship in cleaning up sites by maximizing the
use of site-specific Special Account funds while preserving appropriated Trust Fund dollars for
sites without viable PRPs.
In FY 2009, 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 cleanup sites, the program will recover
this money from the PRPs whenever possible.
Enhancing Science and Research to Restore and Preserve Land
The FY 2009 Land Research program supports the Agency's objective of reducing or controlling
potential risks to human health and the environment at contaminated waste sites by providing the
science to accelerate scientifically defensible and cost-effective decisions for cleanup at complex
sites in accordance with CERCLA.
In FY 2009, EPA is requesting $53.4 million in support of EPA's efforts to enhance science and
research for land preservation and restoration. Research activities in FY 2009 will focus on
contaminated sediments, ground water contamination, multi-media, and site-specific technical
support. Research 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. In addition, research aimed at developing data to support dosimetric and toxicologic
assessment of amphibole asbestos, fiber-containing material from Libby, Montana will be
For more information on the Superfund Federal Facilities Response and Enforcement program, please refer to
http: //www.epa. go v/fedfac.
18
-------
conducted. Groundwater research will focus on the transport of contaminants in that medium and
the subsequent intrusion of contaminant vapors into buildings and continue research on
developing applications for permeable reactive barriers.
Oil spill remediation research will continue 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.
Underground storage tank research will address the development of online transport models that
can be used by state project managers. Research areas such as resource conservation, corrective
action, multi-media modeling, leaching, containment systems, and landfill bioreactors will
constitute the major areas of research and support for RCRA activities in FY 2009. EPA also
will continue to develop a site-specific management approach of brownfields sites, develop
validated acceptable practices for land revitalization, collaborate with the private sector to
conduct field sampling, and with the states to optimize operations and monitoring of several
landfill bioreactors and determine their potential to provide alternative energy in the form of
landfill gas while increasing the nation's landfill capacity.
In FY 2009, additional resources will be invested to research nanotechnology fate and transport
in response to an independent review of the RCRA portion of the Land Research program to
address emerging issues and strategic EPA issues. The primary objective of this research 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).
2007 PART
The following programs were assessed by OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) for
the 2007 PART process:
• Land Protection and Restoration Research
More detailed information is provided in specific program project descriptions.
19
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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 2007
Actuals
$1,288,596.5
$410,407.9
$324,279.5
$169,769.5
$384,139.6
3,743.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,174,061.5
$390,946.1
$234,851.1
$178,088.3
$370,176.0
3,761.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,227,362.5
$387,933.0
$239,667.5
$220,411.0
$379,351.0
3,735.6
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$1,191,003.6
$396,717.0
$235,626.1
$181,029.0
$377,631.4
3,749.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($36,358.9)
$8,784.0
($4,041.4)
($39,382.0)
($1,719.6)
14.1
20
-------
In FY 2009, 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. In general, because of their unique anatomy, biological make-up and
behavior patterns, children may be more at risk for 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
$133.8 million in Pesticides Licensing programs in FY 2009. 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.
During FY 2009, EPA will continue to review and register new pesticides, new uses for
existing pesticides, and other registration requests in accordance with Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) standards and Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act
(PRIA 2) 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.
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
21
-------
concern—diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion, and azinphos-methyl—and consider whether
any additional action is necessary.9 In FY 2009 the Agency will continue to 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.
EPA's statutory and regulatory functions include registration, reregi strati on,
Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions implementation, registration review, risk reduction
implementation, rulemaking and program management. Many of these actions will be for
reduced-risk pesticides for which, once registered and utilized by pesticide users,
increased benefits will accrue 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.
Along with assessing the risks that pesticides pose to human health, EPA conducts
ecological risk assessments under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to determine
potential effects on plants, animals, and ecosystems. 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. 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.
In the biodefense arena, EPA will continue work to develop and validate methods to
evaluate the efficacy of antimicrobial products against bioterrorism agents, expanding
this work to address unique formulations, additional surface types, and additional
bioterrorism agents and emerging pathogens. The Agency will address critical gaps in
efficacy test methodology and knowledge of microbial resistance. In addition to
vegetative bacteria, in FY 2009, EPA will address threatening viruses and other emerging
pathogens in environmental media. EPA will invest in the development and evaluation of
efficacy test protocols for products designed to control viruses in the environment during
decontamination. The development of "decon toolboxes" for specific bioterrorism agents
or classes of bacteria/viruses will continue into FY 2009.
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. 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.
9 Gilliom, 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/.
22
-------
This work is taking place in the Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response and
Recovery program.
Toxics Programs
EPA programs under this goal have many direct and 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 also has 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 218 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 1,800 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. The Lead Program is focusing efforts on reducing lead hazards, and in FY
2009 will implement a final regulation to address lead-safe work practices for renovation,
repair and painting activities in homes with lead-based paint. The program also will
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.
23
-------
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 2009, 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. FY 2009 funding supports and
monitors 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 FY 2009 budget for NEPs and coastal watersheds is
$17.2 million.
The Great Lakes Program ecosystem's FY 2009 budget request continues support of
strategic Great Lakes activities pursuant to Executive Order 13340 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 investigation of the Lake Erie dead zone and the decline of Diporeia, a key lower-
food web organism. The FY 2009 request to implement the Great Lakes Legacy Act
continues to support the cleanup of contaminated sediments.
The FY 2009 budget request also will enable the Chesapeake Bay Program to continue
work with program partners to accelerate implementation of pollution reduction and
aquatic habitat restoration efforts and ensure that water quality objectives are achieved as
soon as possible. EPA is committed to its ambitious long-term goals of 100 percent
attainment of dissolved oxygen standards in waters of the Chesapeake Bay and 185,000
acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). The FY 2009 request will bring the
Agency closer to addressing key priority coastal and ocean issues in the Gulf of Mexico,
such as coastal restoration, water quality for healthy beaches and shellfish beds through
improved detection and forecasting of harmful algal blooms and microbial source
tracking methodologies, and reduction of nutrient inputs to coastal ecosystems.
In conducting special initiatives and planning activities, in FY 2009 EPA is investing
$2.1 million in the South Florida Program to assist with coordinating and facilitating the
ongoing implementation of the Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), conduct studies to determine cause and effect
24
-------
relationships among pollutants and biological resources, implement wastewater and storm
water master plans, and provide public education and outreach activities.
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 cover, health and functionality of seagrass beds, water quality in the
FKNMS, and phosphorus levels throughout the Everglades Protection Area and effluent
limits for all discharges, including storm water treatment areas.
Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE)
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 implement local solutions to minimize exposure to toxic
pollutants and reduce their release. In FY 2009 the Agency is investing $2.4 million in
the program to award approximately 12 new grants, provide technical resources and
training to approximately 50 communities, and work with other federal agencies to
coordinate support for communities.
Brownfields
Improving a community's ability to make decisions that affect its environment is at the
heart of EPA's community-centered work. EPA shares information and builds
community capacity 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 of the contaminated properties
("Brownfields") that lie abandoned or unused. In addition, the Smart Growth Program
works with stakeholders to create an improved economic and institutional climate for
Brownfields redevelopment. Addressing these challenges requires combining innovative
and community-based approaches with national guidelines and interagency coordination
to achieve results.
International Activities
EPA leads efforts to address global environmental issues. To sustain and enhance
domestic and international environmental progress, EPA enlists the cooperation of other
nations and international organizations to help predict, understand, and solve
environmental problems of mutual concern. By assisting developing countries to manage
their natural resources and protect the health of their citizens, EPA also helps to protect
human health and the environment in the U.S.
The Agency 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. As an example, EPA contributes 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 for greater attention to invasive
25
-------
species, and addressing other concerns associated with the movement of traded goods.
Addressing local pollution and infrastructure deficiencies along the U.S.-Mexico border
are also priorities for Mexico and the United States under the Border 2012 Agreement.
The key to sustaining and enhancing progress, both domestically and internationally, is
the collaborative efforts of national, Tribal, state, and local governments, international
organizations, the private sector, and concerned citizens.
Environmental Justice
EPA is committed to protecting the health and environment of 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 national 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
EPA has a responsibility to ensure that efforts to reduce potential environmental risks are
based on the best available scientific information. Strong science allows for
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 accelerate the pace of environmental protection for healthy people, communities, and
ecosystems, EPA will engage in high-priority, cutting-edge, multidisciplinary research
efforts in areas related to human health, ecosystems, mercury, global change, pesticides
and toxics, endocrine disrupters, computational toxicology, nanotechnology and
Homeland Security.
In FY 2009, the Human Health Research Program is working to maintain its successful
program in reducing uncertainties in risk assessment while orienting this work toward
developing and linking indicators of risk along the source-exposure-effects-disease
continuum that can be used to demonstrate reductions in human risk. This strategic shift
is designed to include research that addresses limitations, gaps, and challenges articulated
in the 2003 and 2007 Reports on the Environment. Research includes development of
sensitive and predictive methods to identify viable bio-indicators of exposure,
susceptibility, and effect that could be used to evaluate public health impacts at various
geospatial and temporal scales.
26
-------
The Agency's human health risk assessment (HHRA) research program will implement a
process to identify, compile, characterize, and prioritize new scientific studies into
Integrated Science Assessments (ISAs) of criteria air pollutants to assist EPA's air and
radiation programs in determining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), deliver final ISAs for environmental effects of sulfur oxide and nitrogen
oxides, and release a draft ISA for carbon monoxide. In addition, the HHRA research
program will complete multiple human health assessments of high priority chemicals for
interagency review or external peer review and post several completed human health
assessments in the integrated risk information system.
In order to assess the benefits of ecosystem services to human and ecological well-being,
it is important to define ecosystem services and their implications, measure, monitor and
map those services at multiple scales over time, develop predictive models for
quantifying the changes in ecosystem services, and develop decision platforms for
decision makers to protect and restore ecosystem services through informed decision
making. This represents a transition for the Ecosystems research program in FY 2009.
To meet these objectives, the Agency's ecosystems research will build on existing work
in environmental monitoring and assessment, landscape ecology, modeling ecological
stressor-response relationships, and assessing vulnerability to natural and human
stressors.
Over the last decade, the endocrine disrupter research program conducted the underlying
research, developed and standardized protocols, prepared background materials for
transfer, briefed Agency advisory committees, participated on international committees
on harmonization of protocols, and participated in validation of 19 different in vitro
and/or in vivo assays for the development and implementation of the Agency's two tiered
Endocrine Disrupters Screening Assay. In FY 2009, research will continue in the
following areas:
• Development of novel in vitro assays as improved alternatives that may
further reduce the numbers of animals used;
• Finalization of the Tier 2 amphibian developmental/reproductive assay
and the fish 2 generation study for validation; and
• Leadership on the guidance document and multi -lab oratory
standardization of the Tier 2 mammalian protocol.
In FY 2009, the National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT) will play a
critical role in coordinating and implementing these activities across the Agency. In
addition, in FY 2009, greater emphasis will be placed on using systems biology-based
approaches to advance health-based assessments.
The computational toxicology research program's strategic direction is guided by three
long term goals:
• Improving the linkages in the source-outcome paradigm;
27
-------
• Providing tools for screening and prioritization of chemicals under
regulatory review; and
• Enhancing quantitative risk assessment.
In FY 2009, 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. The program also will conduct research to develop spatially-
explicit probabilistic models for ecological assessments and evaluate the potential
environmental and human health impacts of genetically engineered crops.
EPA will increase efforts to investigate nanotechnology's environmental, health, and
safety implications in FY 2009. This research will examine which processes govern the
environmental fate of nanomaterials and what data are available/needed to enable
nanomaterial risk assessment. Research will continue on improving our measurement,
understanding, and control of mercury, with a research focus on the fate and transport of
mercury and mercury compounds, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Clean Air
Mercury rule. The Agency will also 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.
EPA will continue research to better understand how global change (e.g., climate change)
will affect the environment, including the environmental and human health implications
of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies, and the implications of climate change for the
Agency's fulfillment of its statutory, regulatory and programmatic requirements. The
Agency's climate change research also includes the development of decision support
tools to help resource managers adapt to a changing climate.
In FY 2009, the Agency will continue to enhance the nation's preparedness and response
and recovery capabilities for homeland security incidents through research, development,
and technical support activities. EPA will significantly increase its emphasis on
biodefense research related to anthrax including sampling, decontamination, and risk
assessment methods and models to aid first responders in determining the extent of an
outdoor release of anthrax as well as to aid in the identification of appropriate
decontamination options. More specifically, EPA will strengthen its research in the
following areas:
• Development and adaptation of methods to test for anthrax including the extent of
contamination and clearance following wide-area decontamination;
• Determination of deposition and adhesion properties of anthrax and its ability to
re-aerosolize from materials common to wide-area settings;
• Development of methods to effectively decontaminate anthrax in wide area
environments while minimizing the generation of waste; and
28
-------
• Development and adaptation of methods and models for hazard and exposure
assessments needed to determine risk-based clean up goals for anthrax.
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, peer review, and evaluation by
the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) and the Science Advisory Board (SAB).
Six major research programs in this goal have undergone OMB's PART evaluation
through FY 2007. They include endocrine disrupters research, ecosystems protection
research, human health research, global change research, human health risk assessment
research, and safe pesticides/safe toxics research.
29
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Protect human health and the environment through ensuring compliance with environmental
requirements by enforcing environmental statutes, preventing pollution, and promoting
environmental stewardship. Encourage innovation and provide incentives for governments,
businesses, and the public that promote 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: 3-year rolling average FYs 2003-2005: 900,000,000
pounds.)
• 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
30
-------
GOAL, OBJECTIVE SUMMARY
Budget Authority
Full-time Equivalents
(Dollars in Thousands)
Compliance and Environmental
Stewardship
Achieve Environmental Protection
through Improved Compliance
Improve Environmental
Performance through Pollution
Prevention and Other Stewardship
Practices
Improve Human Health and the
Environment in Indian Country
Enhance Societies Capacity for
Sustainability through Science and
Research
Total Authorized Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$747,628.5
$492,019.1
$117,520.8
$78,703.7
$59,384.9
3,361.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$742,477.6
$506,199.5
$109,079.8
$74,343.8
$52,854.5
3,471.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$734,848.0
$506,581.5
$101,403.7
$73,238.6
$53,624.2
3,486.7
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$751,102.0
$516,901.6
$107,098.6
$75,902.7
$51,199.1
3,425.5
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$16,254.0
$10,320.1
$5,694.9
$2,664.1
($2,425.1)
-61.2
The EPA 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
also will 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, 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. EPA's total proposed FY 2009 budget to improve compliance with environmental
laws is $516.9 million.
31
-------
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 address significant environmental issues
and achieve environmentally beneficial outcomes.
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, and noncompliance rates. 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. In FY 2009, the Civil Enforcement program's proposed budget is $132.4
million.
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. Bringing criminal cases sends a strong message for potential violators, enhancing
aggregate compliance with laws and regulations. In FY 2009, the Criminal Enforcement
program's proposed budget is $52.2 million.
Furthermore, 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
community must first understand its regulatory obligations and then learn how to best comply
with them.
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, to determine whether conditions present imminent and
substantial endangerment, and to analyze compliance rates. FY 2009 Compliance Monitoring
activities will be both environmental media- and sector-based, and will also seek to begin
addressing statistically valid compliance rates. The traditional media-based inspections
complement those performed by states and tribes. They are a key part of our strategy for
meeting the long-term and annual goals established for improving compliance in the air, water,
pesticides, toxic substances, and hazardous waste environmental programs. As part of this
program, the Agency reviews and responds to 100 percent of the notices for trans-boundary
movement of hazardous waste, ensuring that these wastes are properly handled in accordance
with international agreements and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations. The
proposed budget for Compliance Monitoring activities in FY 2009 is $97.2 million.
32
-------
The Enforcement program addresses violations of environmental laws, to ensure that violators
come into compliance with Federal laws and regulations and reduce pollution. In FY 2009, the
program will achieve these 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. The program is considering utilizing analyses and evaluations of
statistically valid compliance rates. In FY 2009, EPA will continue to implement its national
compliance and enforcement priorities, which address the most widespread types of violations
that also pose the most substantive health and environmental risks. In addition, in FY 2009 EPA
anticipates reducing, treating, or eliminating an estimated 890 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. 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. Evaluation of
the results of violations disclosed through self-reporting will occur in order to understand the
effectiveness and accuracy of such self-reporting. Throughout FY 2009, EPA will continue to
investigate options for encouraging self-directed audits and disclosures with particular emphasis
on companies in the process of mergers and/or acquisitions. Also in FY 2009, 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.
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. The FY 2009 NEPA budget is $16.3 million.
Improving Environmental Performance through Innovation and Pollution Prevention
and Stewardship
In FY 2009, with a budget of $18.4 million, the Pollution Prevention program 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. In total, the Agency proposes
33
-------
$107 million to improve environmental performances through pollution and other stewardship
practices.
• Partnering with Businesses and Consumers: In FY 2009, through the Pollution
Prevention (P2) program, EPA will promote stronger regional partnerships and
geographically tailored approaches to address unique community problems. Also in FY
2009, EPA will continue to encourage, empower, and assist government and business to
"green" the nation's supply and demand structures to make them more environmentally
sound. Through the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program, the Agency will
provide enhanced guidance to the Federal building community on model green
construction specifications and help Federal agencies identify and procure those products
that generate the least pollution, consume fewest non-renewable natural resources, and
constitute the least threat to human health and to the environment. EPA's innovative
Green Suppliers Network Program works with large manufacturers to increase energy
efficiency; identify cost-saving opportunities; optimize resources and technology through
the development of sound business approaches incorporating pollution prevention; and to
promote those approaches among their numerous suppliers. 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 2009, through the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP), the
Agency will continue to reduce priority chemicals in wastes. As of August 2007, the
NPEP program has obtained industry commitments for 6.5 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 2009, 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 2009.
Also in FY 2009, 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.
34
-------
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 2009, EPA will
support the growing demand for the ERP program beyond the 16 States and 10 sectors currently
active in the program.
Finally, EPA will continue the State Innovation Grant program in FY 2009, 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.
Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
Since adopting the EPA Indian Policy in 1984, EPA has worked with tribes on a government-to-
government basis in recognition of the Federal government's trust responsibility to Federally-
recognized tribes. EPA will continue to work with Tribal communities in FY 2009 with a budget
of $80.2 million directed to Tribal programs. Under Federal environmental statutes, the Agency
is responsible for protecting human health and the environment in Indian Country. EPA's
American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) leads an Agency wide effort to work with tribes,
Alaska Native Villages, and inter-tribal consortia to fulfill this responsibility. EPA's strategy for
achieving this objective has three major components:
• Establish an Environmental Presence in Indian Country: The Agency will continue
to provide funding through the Indian General Assistance Program (GAP) so each
Federally-recognized tribe can establish an environmental presence.
» 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 2009, GAP grants will build tribal environmental capacity to assess environmental
conditions, utilize available 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.
Sustainability
In total, the Agency proposes $51.2 million to enhance capacity for sustainability through
science and research. EPA has developed and evaluated tools and technologies to monitor,
prevent, control, and clean up pollution throughout its history. Since the Pollution Prevention
35
-------
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. And 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 for the long term.
In FY 2009, 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 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.
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 Investment Criteria of quality, relevance, and performance
in its decision-making processes through (a) the use of research strategies and plans, (b) peer
review, and (c) program review and evaluation by the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
and the Science Advisory Board.
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.
36
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Science and Technology
Resource Summary Table 37
Program Projects in S&T 37
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality 41
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs 42
Federal Support for Air Quality Management 46
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program 49
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification 51
Radiation: Protection 56
Radiation: Response Preparedness 58
Program Area: Climate Protection Program 60
Climate Protection Program 61
Program Area: Enforcement 64
Forensics Support 65
Program Area: Homeland Security 67
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection 68
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 72
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 80
Program Area: Indoor Air 81
Indoor Air: Radon Program 82
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air 84
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 87
IT / Data Management 88
Program Area: Operations and Administration 91
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 92
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing 94
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk 95
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk 97
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability 101
Program Area: Research: Clean Air 104
Research: Clean Air 105
Program Area: Research: Clean Water 115
Research: Drinking Water 116
Research: Water Quality 121
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems 127
Human Health Risk Assessment 128
Research: Computational Toxicology 133
Research: Endocrine Disrupter 137
Research: Fellowships 141
Research: Human Health and Ecosystems 144
Program Area: Research: Land Protection 157
Research: Land Protection and Restoration 158
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainability 162
Research: Sustainability 163
Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention 167
Research: Pesticides and Toxics 168
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection 173
Drinking Water Programs 174
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Science & Technology
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$728,339.9
2,425.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$754,506.0
2,405.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$760,084.0
2,405.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$763,527.0
2,387.5
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,443.0
-18.3
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
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
Homeland Security:
FY 2007
Actuals
$8,661.1
$9,104.1
$1,804.1
$58,196.0
$2,126.1
$3,375.6
$83,267.0
$14,624.1
$13,949.3
$3,183.6
$7,391.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$8,259.0
$10,886.0
$2,252.0
$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
Enacted
$9,115.0
$12,118.0
$2,220.0
$66,796.0
$2,087.0
$3,679.0
$96,015.0
$18,331.0
$14,882.0
$11,705.0
$3,652.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$8,259.0
$11,086.0
$2,303.0
$69,543.0
$2,109.0
$4,016.0
$97,316.0
$11,402.0
$15,557.0
$22,637.0
$4,494.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($856.0)
($1,032.0)
$83.0
$2,747.0
$22.0
$337.0
$1,301.0
($6,929.0)
$675.0
$10,932.0
$842.0
37
-------
Program Project
Critical Infrastructure
Protection (other activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security:
Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery
Decontamination
Laboratory Preparedness
and Response
Safe Buildings
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
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure
and Operations (other
activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure
and Operations
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Pesticides Licensing
FY 2007
Actuals
$10,575.4
$21,025.2
$618.6
$4,242.2
$13,117.6
$39,003.6
$2,023.9
$51,602.9
$434. 1
$791.2
$1,225.3
$4,522.1
$13,085.0
$9,110.1
$3,403.6
$7,287.5
$32,886.2
$32,886.2
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
$35,521.0
$18,392.0
$11,179.0
$8,767.0
$73,859.0
$73,859.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$15,357.0
$20,444.0
$591.0
$1,969.0
$15,189.0
$38,193.0
$585.0
$54,135.0
$422.0
$777.0
$1,199.0
$3,453.0
$34,967.0
$18,105.0
$11,005.0
$8,630.0
$72,707.0
$72,707.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$27,131.0
$28,805.0
$500.0
$2,000.0
$14,905.0
$46,210.0
$594.0
$73,935.0
$441.0
$790.0
$1,231.0
$3,859.0
$35,521.0
$18,547.0
$11,989.0
$8,827.0
$74,884.0
$74,884.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$11,774.0
$8,361.0
($91.0)
$31.0
($284.0)
$8,017.0
$9.0
$19,800.0
$19.0
$13.0
$32.0
$406.0
$554.0
$442.0
$984.0
$197.0
$2,177.0
$2,177.0
38
-------
Program Project
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: 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 / Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
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
FY 2007
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$2,570.3
$2,885.8
$5,456.1
$13,521.3
$0.0
$20,449.9
$61,664.0
$95,635.2
$44,342.9
$54,428.5
$98,771.4
$16,456.4
$35,018.0
$12,159.5
$10,476.7
$12,231.1
$0.0
$0.0
$167,910.0
$167,910.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,294.0
$2,115.0
$472.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,881.0
$0.0
$81,054.0
$16,908.0
$0.0
$97,962.0
$48,548.0
$56,454.0
$105,002.0
$0.0
$38,856.0
$15,103.0
$10,131.0
$8,438.0
$72,285.0
$72,761.0
$0.0
$145,046.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,250.0
$2,087.0
$465.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,802.0
$0.0
$79,993.0
$19,688.0
$0.0
$99,681.0
$48,775.0
$55,573.0
$104,348.0
$5,316.0
$38,334.0
$12,135.0
$10,317.0
$9,845.0
$77,260.0
$75,772.0
$0.0
$153,032.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$3,453.0
$2,216.0
$495.0
$0.0
$0.0
$6,164.0
$0.0
$80,588.0
$16,365.0
$0.0
$96,953.0
$45,283.0
$56,179.0
$101,462.0
$0.0
$39,323.0
$14,863.0
$9,502.0
$8,887.0
$74,752.0
$69,990.0
$0.0
$144,742.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$203.0
$129.0
$30.0
$0.0
$0.0
$362.0
$0.0
$595.0
($3,323.0)
$0.0
($2,728.0)
($3,492.0)
$606.0
($2,886.0)
($5,316.0)
$989.0
$2,728.0
($815.0)
($958.0)
($2,508.0)
($5,782.0)
$0.0
($8,290.0)
39
-------
Program Project
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
Subtotal, Drinking Water
Programs
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2007
Actuals
$237,795.3
$10,907.3
$2,284.9
$1,410.1
$24,864.5
$28,559.5
$29,425.2
$3,256.6
$3,256.6
$728,339.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$217,574.0
$10,737.0
$0.0
$0.0
$22,478.0
$22,478.0
$24,795.0
$3,416.0
$3,416.0
$754,506.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$223,663.0
$10,591.0
$0.0
$0.0
$22,127.0
$22,127.0
$24,459.0
$3,375.0
$3,375.0
$760,084.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$217,317.0
$13,350.0
$0.0
$0.0
$19,970.0
$19,970.0
$26,568.0
$3,559.0
$3,559.0
$763,527.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($6,346.0)
$2,759.0
$0.0
$0.0
($2,157.0)
($2,157.0)
$2,109.0
$184.0
$184.0
$3,443.0
40
-------
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality
41
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$18,621.2
$8,661.1
$27,282.3
86.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$19,388.0
$8,259.0
$27,647.0
89.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$19,131.0
$9,115.0
$28,246.0
89.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$19,898.0
$8,259.0
$28,157.0
88.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$767.0
($856.0)
($89.0)
-0.5
Program Project Description:
The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) emissions allowance trading programs build upon the
successful and cost-effective Acid Rain Sulfur Dioxide (802) cap-and-trade program created in
1990. 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
deep cuts in SO2 and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) emissions. When fully implemented, CAIR will
reduce SO2 emissions in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia by over 70 percent and
NOX emissions by over 60 percent from 2003 levels. 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 SO2 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. 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. For additional
information on CAIR, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oar/interstateairquality/.
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
42
-------
emissions nationwide will be reduced to 38 tons by taking advantage of "co-benefit"
reductions—that is, mercury reductions achieved by reducing SC>2 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. For additional information on CAMR,
please visit http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/.
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. The FY 2009 request level for CASTNET
is $2.95M. For additional information on CASTNET, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/CASTNET/.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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 U.S. economy, environment, small
businesses, 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. Operate the CAIR annual NOX
emission reduction program beginning in FY 2009.
• 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 FY 2009. 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.
43
-------
• Continue modifying data systems and operating infrastructure for CAIR/CAMR:
Effective and efficient operation of these programs depends critically upon further
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).
Working with other Federal agency partners, EPA will continue developing a new framework for
a coordinated network for monitoring atmospheric mercury that is scientifically credible and
would have sites strategically located to meet CAMR accountability needs (e.g., in source-
impacted areas).
In FY 2009, 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 FY
2009, 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 is
developing measures of program efficiency to be completed by December 2008. 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 a measure of program efficiency that takes into
consideration the full cost of the program to be completed by December 2008.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Tons of sulfur dioxide
emissions from
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
7,500,000
FY 2008
Target
8,000,000
FY 2009
Target
8,000,000
Units
Tons
Reduced
44
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
electric power
generation sources
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
Reducing emissions of 862 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, hundreds 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 deposition and sulfur deposition with performance targets set
for every three years; the next report date is planned for FY 2010.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
. (-$856.0) 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. This also
reflects the net change including restoration of the FY 2008 Omnibus 1.56% rescission.
In addition, this change reduces a congressionally directed increase in the FY 2008
Omnibus. All priority activities in this program can be funded within base resources.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
45
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$95,576.0
$9,104.1
$104,680.1
694.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$90,490.0
$10,886.0
$101,376.0
700.7
FY 2008
Enacted
$89,464.0
$12,118.0
$101,582.0
700.7
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$95,538.0
$11,086.0
$106,624.0
709.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,074.0
($1,032.0)
$5,042.0
9.0
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) and transportation conformity
determinations. Also, EPA assists states and local governments to identify the most cost-
effective control options available.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
As part of implementing the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter (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 2009, EPA will continue to
ensure national consistency in how conformity determinations are conducted across the U.S.
EPA will continue to ensure consistency in adequacy findings for motor vehicle emissions
budgets in air quality plans, which are used in conformity determinations. EPA will continue to
work with state and local transportation and air quality agencies to ensure that PM2.5 hot-spot
analyses are conducted in a manner consistent with the transportation conformity regulation and
guidance. 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.
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 2007, basic and/or enhanced vehicle Inspection/Maintenance
testing was being performed in over 30 states with technical and programmatic guidance from
EPA. In FY 2009, EPA will continue to assist states in bringing operating programs toward the
future to deal with new fuel, vehicle, and technology requirements.
46
-------
EPA will continue to assist state, Tribal, and local agencies in implementing and assessing the
effectiveness of national clean air programs via a broad suite of analytical tools. For more
information visit: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (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 by December 2008.
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 also is developing program efficiency measures by December 2008.
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 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
3
FY 2008
Target
4
FY 2009
Target
5
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in
population-weighted
ambient concentration
of ozone in monitored
counties from 2003
baseline.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
6
FY 2008
Target
8
FY 2009
Target
10
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in the
number of days to
process State
Implementation Plan
revisions, weighted by
complexity.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
0
FY 2008
Target
-1.2
FY 2009
Target
-2.4
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.
47
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$177.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$169.0) This total reflects the net change including restoration of the FY 2008
Omnibus 1.56% rescission and will assist states, tribes and localities in developing clean
air plans.
• (-$1,378.0) The FY 2008 Omnibus Appropriation provided directed funding for the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to complete the Central California Ozone
Study. This change reduces a congressionally directed increase in the FY 2008 Omnibus.
All priority activities in this program can be funded within base resources.
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.
48
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$25,081.8
$1,804.1
$26,885.9
141.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$24,711.0
$2,252.0
$26,963.0
141.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$24,390.0
$2,220.0
$26,610.0
141.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$22,693.0
$2,303.0
$24,996.0
141.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,697.0)
$83.0
($1,614.0)
0.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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. Reducing emissions from diesel engines will
help localities meet the Agency's Ambient Air Quality Goals and reduce exposure to air toxics
from diesel engines. EPA also has 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.
49
-------
EPA will work with partners to develop improved emission factors and inventories, including a
better automated, higher-quality 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NET) database with an
expected completion date of July 2009. 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
cancer risk) emissions
of air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2009
FY 2007
Target
35
FY 2008
Target
35
FY 2009
Target
36
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percentage
reduction in tons of
toxicity-weighted (for
noncancer risk)
emissions of air toxics
from 1993 baseline.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2009
FY 2007
Target
58
FY 2008
Target
59
FY 2009
Target
59
Units
Percentage
Performance targets for reduction of toxicity weighted emissions are also supported by work
under the Federal Stationary Source Regulations program project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$20.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$63.0) This increase will help states address local air toxics issues and reflects
restoration of the FY 2008 Omnibus 1.56% rescission.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
50
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$58,196.0
$58,196.0
285.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$65,722.0
$65,722.0
295.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$66,796.0
$66,796.0
295.2
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$69,543.0
$69,543.0
304.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,747.0
$2,747.0
9.0
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.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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. 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 continue implementation of a manufacturer-run in-use compliance surveillance program for
highway heavy-duty diesel, locomotive, marine spark ignition (SI) and large SI engines. EPA
also will continue the implementation of the Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS) rule promulgated
in 2007, as well as several other 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 in coordination with DOE. In addition the
recently signed Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) will dramatically expand the
renewable fuels provisions of EPAct and will require additional EPA studies in various areas of
renewable fuel use.
51
-------
Other FY 2009 implementation activities include the implementation of the new fuel economy
labelling program finalized in 2006, which required EPA to re-evaluate the fuel economy test
methods every five years to ensure that the test methods stay current with changes in vehicle
technologies. In FY 2009, EPA will begin evaluating fuel economy data to support the required
review in 2011. EPA also will be conducting follow-up implementation work related to the
mobile source air toxics rulemaking in preparation for the 2011 program start date (work
includes the assessment of refineries' pre-compliance reports and early credit generation, in
order to monitor the viability of the benzene credit market). The Agency also will start
implementation activities for the Locomotives/Marine rule recently finalized in 2008, as well as
for small gasoline engine standards beginning with model year 2009.
In FY 2009, EPA will promulgate more stringent NOx and PM emission standards for ocean-
going vessels. The designation of U.S. coastal areas as SOx Emission Control Areas (SECA)
pursuant to MARPOL Annex VI fuel sulfur provisions also will be critical to achieving PM
reductions from ocean-going vessels, most of which are foreign flagged. In 2009, EPA will be
completing the request for SECA designation to the International Maritime Organization (EVIO).
This request will include analysis of air quality data and estimation of benefits and economic
impact.
Several important actions for nonroad diesel engines also will take place in 2009. To meet the
new nonroad diesel standards, engine manufacturers will produce engines that are going to be
more complex and dependent on electronic controls, similar to highway engines. Nonroad On-
Board Diagnostics (OBD) requirements are needed to ensure that engines are properly
maintained and compliant, ensuring that the full benefits of the emission standards are realized
in-use. A nonroad OBD rule will be promulgated in 2009.
In addition, EPA will promulgate a rule establishing an in-use compliance surveillance programs
for nonroad diesel engines, as agreed upon in the settlement with the Engine Manufacturers
Association. This program is vital to ensuring that new engine standards are actually met in-use
under real-world conditions. Other new nonroad programs include: a motorcycle rulemaking to
establish engine certification procedures, confirm 2010 standards, and establish standards and
test cycles for world harmonized test procedures; a rulemaking to review and revise the long-
term emission standard for snowmobiles as required by court order; and a rulemaking action to
propose adoption of international NOx standards for jet turbine engines that would align Federal
rules with international requirements.
EPA's emission models provide the overarching architecture that supports EPA's regulatory
programs, generating emission factors and inventories needed to quantify emission reductions.
In FY 2009, will begin utilizing the new mobile source emission model, MOVES. The Motor
Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) will greatly improve the Agency's ability to support the
development of emission control programs, as well as provide support to states in their
determination of program needs to meet air quality standards.
EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) conducts testing operations on
motor vehicles, heavy-duty engines, nonroad engines, and fuels to certify that all vehicles,
engines, and fuels that enter the US market comply with all Federal clean air and fuel economy
52
-------
standards. The NVFEL lab will continue to conduct vehicle emission tests as part of pre-
production tests, certification audits, in-use assessments, and recall programs to support mobile
source clean air programs. Tests are conducted on a spot check basis 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 2009,
EPA will continue to conduct testing activities for fuel economy, Tier II testing, reformulated
gasoline, future fleets, alternative fuel vehicle conversion certifications, OBD evaluations,
certification audits, and recall programs. In addition to these testing activities, EPA also will be
expanding its compliance testing of heavy-duty and non-road engines.
EPA will review and approve approximately 4,000 vehicle and engine emissions certification
requests, including light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty diesel engines, nonroad engines, marine
engines, locomotives and others. This represents a significant expansion in EPA's certification
burden over previous years, due in part to the addition of certification requirements for stationary
engines and evaporative emission certification requirements for marine and small spark-ignited
engines. Certification and compliance of advanced technologies such as plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles and light-duty diesel applications will also be a major focus in FY 2009. The Agency
also will continue to review the in-use verification program data submitted by vehicle
manufacturers to determine whether there are any emissions compliance issues. In addition,
EPA will continue to expand its web-based compliance information system to be used by
manufacturers and EPA staff to house compliance data for all regulated vehicles and engines.
Implementation of CAFE standards for light-duty trucks also will be an area of focus for EPA in
FY 2009, as new standards come into place. Work also will continue on activities for Light-
Duty (LD), Heavy-Duty (HD) and Nonroad (NR) sectors.
In FY 2009, EPA expects to expend significant resources on ensuring compliance with
certification as well as in-use requirements for foreign-built engines and equipment. EPA also
will continue the implementation of fuels regulatory requirements such as Reformulated Fuel
Standards (RFS), Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), Gasoline Sulfur, and Air Toxics.
Through the World Summit on Sustainable Development WSSD partnerships with developing
countries EPA will continue addressing the impact 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; and reducing sulfur in diesel and
gasoline, while concurrently introducing cleaner vehicle technologies. These emissions
reductions will reduce pollution that is transported across our borders and the northern
hemisphere into the United States, providing important air quality and public health benefits to
the United States.
The Mobile Sources program was assessed in 2004 through the PART process, and rated as
"moderately effective." EPA is collecting data to better monitor efficiency improvements, and is
systematically analyzing and evaluating regulations to ensure effectively achieving the greatest
benefits.
53
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Tons of PM- 10
Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
87,026
FY 2008
Target
99,458
FY 2009
Target
110,190
Units
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Limit the increase of
CO emissions (in tons)
from mobile sources
compared to a 2000
baseline.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
1.18M
FY 2008
Target
1.35M
FY 2009
Target
1.52M
Units
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Millions of Tons of
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
1.20M
FY 2008
Target
1.37M
FY 2009
Target
1.54M
Units
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Millions of Tons of
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOx) Reduced since
2000 Reduced from
Mobile Sources
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
2.37M
FY 2008
Target
2.71M
FY 2009
Target
3.05M
Units
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
TonsofPM-2.5
Reduced since 2000
from Mobile Sources
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
85,704
FY 2008
Target
97,947
FY 2009
Target
110,890
Units
Tons
EPA will continue to achieve 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. The Clean Trucks and Buses
program, which began in 2007, 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.
54
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$318.0) This increase will support implementation of on-going requirements for the
renewable fuels standard (RFS) program under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and
support development and implementation of new renewable fuel program requirements
that were greatly expanded under the recently passed Energy Independence and Security
Act (EISA) of 2007. This increase also includes restoration of the FY 2008 Omnibus
1.56% rescission.
• (+9.0 FTE) This reflects a 9.0 total workyears increase and $1,138.0 in payroll to support
the new program priorities described above, including the total workyears needed to
handle the large new workload created by RFS and EISA fuels reporting and tracking
requirements.
• (+$138.0) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (+$2,291.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f); MVICSA; AMFA of 1988; NHSDA; NEPA; EPC Act; and EPA
of 2005; EISA of 2007.
55
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$10,172.7
$2,126.1
$1,960.9
$14,259.7
89.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,186.0
$2,120.0
$2,373.0
$14,679.0
88.6
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,057.0
$2,087.0
$2,342.0
$14,486.0
88.6
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$10,533.0
$2,109.0
$2,414.0
$15,056.0
88.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$476.0
$22.0
$72.0
$570.0
0.0
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, promotes the management of radiation risks in a
consistent and safe manner.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009 EPA, in cooperation with state and local governments, and other Federal agencies,
will assist with site characterizations and provide analytical support for site assessment activities,
remediation technologies, and measurement and information systems. EPA also will 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 also will conduct radioanalytical and mixed waste analyses in support of
Regional site assessments, cleanups and response activities.
56
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Percentage of most
populous US cities
with a RadNet ambient
radiation air
monitoring system,
which will provide data
to assist in protective
action determinations.
FY 2007
Actual
80
FY 2007
Target
87
FY 2008
Target
85
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percentage
EPA expects to be on track through its ongoing work to accomplish 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 Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) recently approved several outcome-oriented strategic and
annual performance measures for this program in conjunction with its 2007 PART assessment.
The measures all have baseline data and some historical data which provide a benchmark to
assist in the development of the outyear targets. The Radiation Program received a rating of
"moderately effective."
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$41.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$19.0) This change reflects the net effect of the restoration of the 1.56% rescission to
all program projects and small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or
other support costs across programs.
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 ; EPA 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; WIPP
Land Withdrawal Act.
57
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$2,809.7
53,375.6
$6,185.3
39.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,928.0
$3,721.0
$6,649.0
42.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,882.0
$3,679.0
$6,561.0
42.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$2,941.0
$4,016.0
$6,957.0
42.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$59.0
$337.0
$396.0
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 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 staff are members of EPA's Radiological
Emergency Response Team (RERT) and are trained to provide direct expert assistance in the
field.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA's RERT, a component of the Agency's emergency response program, will
ensure 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 2009, the labs will continue to develop rapid-deployment capabilities to ensure that
field teams are ready to provide scientific data, analyses and updated analytical techniques for
radiation emergency response programs across the Agency. The labs will maintain readiness for
radiological emergency responses, participate in emergency exercises; provide on-site scientific
support to state radiation, solid waste, and health programs that regulate radiation remediation;
participate in the Protective Action Guidance (PAG) development and application; and respond,
as required, to radiological incidents.
Additional information can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/ last accessed 7/25/2007.
58
-------
Performance Targets:
EPA expects to be on track through its ongoing work to accomplish 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 Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) recently approved several outcome-oriented strategic and
annual performance measures for this program in conjunction with its 2007 PART assessment.
The measures all have baseline data and some historical data which provide a benchmark to
assist in the development of the outyear targets. The Radiation Program received a rating of
"moderately effective." This program project supports other related program projects; there are
no specific measures for this program project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$241.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$19.0) This increase is associated with increased programmatic laboratory fixed costs.
• (+$77.0) This increase reflects continued support for emergency response activities and
the restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
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; PHSA, 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 A; and Title XIV of the NDAA of 1997, PL 104-201 (Nunn-Lugar II).
59
-------
Program Area: Climate Protection Program
60
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$91,252.1
$14,624.1
$105,876.2
222.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$87,927.0
$13,104.0
$101,031.0
212.5
FY 2008
Enacted
$90,374.0
$18,331.0
$108,705.0
212.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$87,008.0
$11,402.0
$98,410.0
213.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($3,366.0)
($6,929.0)
($10,295.0)
0.5
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. By 2009,
EPA hydraulic hybrid technology will be installed in _8 different kinds of prototype
demonstration vehicles each targeting a different vocation / industry. 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Clean Automotive Technology Program will:
• Continue the transfer of EPA's advances in hydraulic hybrid technologies (promote
adoption of technology and technical assistance), providing continuity in EPA's
commitments to the truck and fleet industry for development and deployment. And the
transfer of EPA's advances in clean diesel combustion technologies (promote adoption of
technology and technical assistance), providing continuity in EPA's commitments to the
automotive and truck industry for development and deployment.
61
-------
• Continue field tests currently underway and planned for hydraulic-hybrid and clean
engine technologies achieving better fuel economy than the typical baseline vehicles.
• Continue demonstration of the effectiveness of the Clean Automotive Technology
Program's high-efficiency, clean combustion E-85/M-85 alcohol engine in a hydraulic
hybrid vehicle.
The FY 2009 Budget Request for the Clean Automotive Technology program totals $11.4
million.
In FY 2009, 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.
Performance Targets:
OMB assessed the Climate Change Program in 2004 through the PART process, and gave it a
rating of "adequate." EPA is working through its technology transfer demonstration projects
with industry to develop performance data which definitively quantifies the "real-world"
greenhouse gas reduction potential of these clean automotive technologies. Initial "real-world"
test data will begin coming in from the various demonstration programs with industry in 2009.
The Agency will use the data to develop performance measuresfor the Clean Automotive
Technologies program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$5014.0) This total reflects the net change including restoration of the FY 2008 Omnibus
1.56% rescission and reduces congressionally directed funding provided in the FY 2008
Omnibus for the Clean Automotive Technology Program.
• (-$2,000.0) This reduction reflects a decrease in Federal investment in the Clean Automotive
Technology program which is also provided by the private sector and the Department of
Energy. However, by 2009, EPA hydraulic hybrid technology will be installed in 8 different
kinds of prototype demonstration vehicles each targeting a different vocation / industry.
» (-$50.0) This decrease reflects a consolidation of program evaluation efforts in the Office of
the Administrator.
» (+$135.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+0.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align, resources, skills and Agency priorities.
62
-------
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;FTTA, 15 U.S.C. - Section 3701a.
63
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
64
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$13,949.3
$2,805.2
$16,754.5
97.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,075.0
$2,310.0
$17,385.0
105.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$14,882.0
$3,750.0
$18,632.0
105.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$15,557.0
$2,441.0
$17,998.0
105.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$675.0
($1,309.0)
($634.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Forensics Support program provides specialized scientific and technical support for the
nation's most complex civil and criminal enforcement cases and provides technical expertise for
non-routine Agency compliance efforts. EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center
(NEIC) is the only accredited environmental forensics center in the nation. NEIC's
Accreditation Standard has been customized to cover the civil, criminal, and special program
work conducted by the program.
NEIC collaborates with other Federal, state, local, and Tribal enforcement organizations to
provide technical assistance, consultation, on-site inspection, investigation, and case resolution
activities in support of the Agency's civil enforcement program. In addition, the program
coordinates with the Department of Justice and other Federal, state, and local law enforcement
organizations to provide this type of science and technology support for criminal investigations.2
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Efforts to stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement in FY 2009 will include the
refinement of process-based single and multi-media compliance monitoring investigation
approaches, use of customized laboratory methods to solve unusual enforcement case challenges
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, develop, and
deploy new capabilities, test and/or enhance existing methods and techniques, and provide
technology transfer to other enforcement personnel involving environmental measurement and
forensic applications. 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 2009, the Forensics program will continue to function under more stringent International
Standards Organization (ISO) requirements for environmental data measurements to maintain its
accreditation. The program also will continue development of emerging technologies in field
2 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/index.html.
65
-------
measurement and laboratory analytical techniques, as well as identifying sources of pollution at
abandoned 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA
strategic architecture.
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 2007
Actual
890
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
890
FY 2009
Target
890
Units
Million
pounds
One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions. The Agency is exploring methodologies to
strengthen the measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may
entail analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.
Estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA have grown
over the past five years. The last two years have seen actuals in the 890 M pounds range, and
therefore our targets are being adjusted upward. However, one or two cases can have a
significant effect on the end-of-year results. These estimates are projections made from future
pollution reduction based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$781.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$106.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
(RLBPHRA); FIFRA; Ocean Dumping Act (i.e., MPRSA); EPCRA.
66
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
67
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$9,555.5
$10,575.4
$1,637.2
$21,768.1
53.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$7,787.0
$25,586.0
$1,857.0
$35,230.0
59.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$7,665.0
$15,357.0
$1,828.0
$24,850.0
59.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$6,759.0
$27,131.0
$1,679.0
$35,569.0
49.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($906.0)
$11,774.0
($149.0)
$10,719.0
-10.0
Program Project Description:
This program provides resources to coordinate and support protection of the nation's critical
water infrastructure from terrorist threats and all-hazard 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to support the Water Security Initiative (WSI) 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 Agency also will continue progress to
integrate the Regional laboratory networks and the WSI pilot laboratories into a national,
consistent program. All of these efforts support the Agency's responsibilities and commitments
under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), as defined within the Water Sector
Specific Plan, which includes, for example, specific milestones for work related to the WSI, the
Water Laboratory Alliance, and metric development.
The FY 2009 request includes $21.4 million for WSI and $1.3 million for WATR.
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
68
-------
water surveillance and emergency response activities. The overall goal of the initiative is to
design and demonstrate an effective system for timely detection and appropriate response to
drinking water contamination threats and incidents through a pilot program that would have
broad application to the nation's drinking water utilities in high threat cities.
WSI consists of five general components: (1) enhanced physical security monitoring, (2) water
quality monitoring, (3) routine and triggered sampling for 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."
WSI 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.
Resources appropriated to date have enabled EPA to implement an initial pilot for the WSI.
EPA published interim guidance on designing contamination warning systems in FY 2007 and
plans to release two additional documents which address consequence management planning and
system operation in FY 2008. Grants for the second and third pilots are expected to be awarded
in the second quarter of FY 2008. Requested FY 2009 funding for the program will support two
additional pilots, bringing the total number of pilots to five. In addition, the F Y 2009 funds will
support technical assistance for the existing pilots, research efforts on evaluating chemical,
biological, and radiological (CBR) analytical methods and event detection software, and assist in
conducting outreach efforts to migrate lessons learned from the pilots to the water sector. In the
out-years, EPA will focus on calibrating the contaminant warning systems and conducting
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 pilots 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 Laboratory Alliance
In a contamination event, the sheer volume or unconventional type of samples will quickly
overwhelm the capacity or capability of a single laboratory. To address this deficiency, the Water
Laboratory Alliance (WLA) will establish an unprecedented network of labs by harnessing the
range of existing lab resources from the local (e.g., water utility) to the Federal levels (e.g.,
CDC's Laboratory Response Network). The WLA will reduce the time necessary for confirming
an intentional contamination event in drinking water and speed response and decontamination
efforts. Implementation of the WLA, which is the drinking water portion of EPA's
Environmental Laboratory Response Network, is progressing through the establishment of
69
-------
Regional networks consisting of state public health and environmental laboratories, drinking
water utilities, and EPA Regional laboratories that collectively will compose Regional laboratory
response preparedness systems. Under the WLA, EPA also will validate methods for
contaminants of high concern in drinking water, about 90% of which currently lack validated
methods. EPA has established Regional Laboratory Response Plans and networks focused on
drinking water contamination response for each of EPA's ten Regions. In FY 2009, the Agency
will continue to build these Regional alliances to provide laboratories and utilities with access to
supplemental analytical capability and capacity, improved preparedness for analytical support to
an emergency situation, and coordinated and standardized data reporting systems and analytical
methods.
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.
In FY 2009, 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;
• Implement an effort to begin measuring the risk profile and security posture of the water
sector so as to gauge the sector's current risk status, security countermeasures, and
progress in reducing risk;
• Disseminate tools and provide technical assistance to ensure that water and wastewater
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;
• Support WATR through continuing to conduct additional training sessions for drinking
water 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 for this specific Program.
70
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$84.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$11,200.0) This increase reflects resources required in order to fully fund a cumulative
total of five WSI pilots. These resources will assist drinking water utilities in the design
and deployment of drinking water contamination warning systems designed to provide
timely detection and appropriate response to a possible contamination incident. The
Agency believes that 5 pilots are necessary in order to get a broad range of data so that
utilities across the country will have applicable results to examine as they work to
strengthen their contamination warning systems.
• (+$490.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA; CWA; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002;
EPCRA.
71
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$3,394.3
$39,003.6
$50,318.1
$92,716.0
166.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,381.0
$40,768.0
$45,280.0
$89,429.0
167.6
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,329.0
$38,193.0
$44,629.0
$86,151.0
167.6
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$3,412.0
$46,210.0
$56,676.0
$106,298.0
174.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$83.0
$8,017.0
$12,047.0
$20,147.0
6.6
Program Project Description:
Through research, development, and technical support activities, EPA's Homeland Security
Research Program enhances the Nation's preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities for
homeland security large-scale catastrophic incidents involving chemical, biological or
radiological threats and attacks. EPA continues to assemble and evaluate tools and capabilities
so that cost effective response approaches can be identified and evaluated for future use by the
response community, elected and appointed decision makers, risk managers, and the public.
Research will provide state-of-the-art approaches to address all phases of emergency response to
ensure public and worker safety, protect property, and facilitate recovery to a safe state and
resumption of normal activity. The Agency also continues to work with other Federal agencies
and other organizations, through collaborative research efforts, to strengthen decontamination
capabilities.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA homeland security research on chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) contaminants
will continue to fill critical gaps in our ability to effectively respond to and recover from threats,
attacks, and large-scale catastrophic incidents. It will promote improved response capabilities
and more informed decision making across government and industry in areas where EPA has
unique knowledge and expertise related to decontamination and disposal of contaminated
materials.
The goal of the FY 2009 Homeland Security Research Program is to deliver science and
engineering research results to the program's customers to better facilitate and enable their
ability to carry out their homeland security missions. Needs identified jointly with key
customers are the primary factor used in prioritizing the research program's activities. Key
72
-------
customers include EPA's Water Program, the Solid Waste and Emergency Response Program,
and the Air Program. The research program will provide support and assist in interactions with
water utilities to help ensure the security of the nation's water systems and safe drinking water.
The research program is also increasing its responsiveness to the science needs of the EPA
emergency response community (National Decontamination Team, Environmental Response
Team, Radiological Emergency Response Team, Removal Managers, and On-Scene
Coordinators). Research will be focused on providing tools and support to facilitate response to
and recovery from large-scale catastrophic incidents. Along with this customer focus, the
program has enhanced its communications throughout EPA's Homeland Security program and
the Regional offices to ensure that needs are met and communicated and that areas of
collaboration have been identified.
Decontamination Research:
EPA's decontamination research program directly supports EPA's National Response Plan
(NRP) as well as the responsibilities assigned to the Agency in Homeland Security Presidential
Directives (e.g., HSPD-7, HSPD-9, and HSPD-10). In many cases, the research program also
supports the Department of Homeland Security's requirements for EPA expertise in a number of
key areas including water infrastructure and materials decontamination and disposal. Activities
in FY 2009 will include the following:
• Threat and consequence assessment research will focus on developing products and tools
(such as filling critical gaps in toxicity databases) to provide information for rapidly
assessing threats and risks to human health, aid decision-makers in assessing risks to
human health from biological and chemical agents, and further identify research gaps.
The information to be collected, generated, and evaluated includes information on the
toxicity, infectivity, mechanism of action, fate, transport, and exposure consequences for
biological agents. This information will be used to develop relationships of human
response to varying doses of biological units (spores, cells, etc.) to assist in the
development of cleanup goals. Research will continue to identify risks during incidents
and to develop improved methods to communicate those risks to decision-makers and the
public.
• EPA will continue to develop innovative methods and strategies and test commercially-
available technologies to enhance the Nation's ability to detect, contain, decontaminate,
and safely dispose of CBR warfare agents resulting from terrorist attacks in outdoor areas
such as urban centers.
• To support the homeland security requirements under HSPDs 9 and 10, including the
development of the Environmental Laboratory Response Network (ELRN), EPA will
continue to expand the Standardized Analytical Methods (SAM) and create Reference
Laboratory capability. SAM identifies high risk chemical, biological, and radiological
agents and analytical methods for the ELRN that are required to document safe
restoration exposure levels. Reference Labs serve as an authoritative source in the ELRN
for method development, verification, and validation.
73
-------
In addition, EPA plans to enhance the nation's ability to respond to a wide-area anthrax attack
(i.e., an intentional anthrax release outdoors, in an airport, train station, or stadium). Increased
resources are requested to strengthen research in the following areas:
• Development and adaptation of methods to test for anthrax including the extent of
contamination and clearance following wide-area decontamination.
• Determination of deposition and adhesion properties of anthrax and its ability to re-
aerosolize from materials common to wide-area settings.
• Development of methods to effectively decontaminate anthrax in wide area environments
while minimizing the generation of waste.
• Development and adaption of methods and models for hazard and exposure assessments
needed to determine risk-based clean up goals for anthrax.
Decontamination research will produce many science and engineering products in FY 2009 to
support EPA's National Response Plan and first-responders in carrying out their homeland
security missions. The following are several FY 2009 product highlights:
• Methods for real-time detection of anthrax and for rapid determination of its viability on
surfaces and in environmental media.
• Report on the ability of anthrax to re-aerosolize from various wide-area materials.
• Methods to combine infectivity and exposure assessments into a scientifically defensible
characterization of risk of humans exposed to anthrax.
• Conduct a full-scale demonstration of decontamination technologies shown to be
efficacious in lab studies.
• Update Support for Environmental Rapid Risk Assessment (SERRA) database with the
latest information on the effects to human health from bioterrorism and other warfare
agents.
• Provisional Advisory Levels (PALs) for 15 chemicals to guide responders on human
health risk of exposure to toxic industrial chemicals and chemical warfare agents.
• Expand Disposal Decision Support Tool to include guidance for the safe disposal of
radioactive wastes and wastes from agroterrorism.
Water Infrastructure Protection Research:
Water Infrastructure Protection Research will focus on developing, testing, demonstrating,
communicating, and implementing enhanced methods for detection, treatment, and containment
of CBR agents 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. The program will produce many science and engineering products in FY 2009 to
support EPA's Water Program and water utilities in carrying out their homeland security
missions. The following are several FY 2009 product highlights:
74
-------
• Computer tools to assess water utility vulnerabilities, optimally place sensors, and help to
manage consequences of both terror and non-terror events.
• Cost effective online Total Organic Carbon (TOC) detector, essential to real-time
monitoring of distribution systems.
• Decontamination approaches for water distribution systems
• Validated chemical Standard Analytical Protocols (SAP) for water.
Safe Buildings Research:
EPA's Safe Buildings research focuses on identifying, developing, and testing better, less
expensive, and safer decontamination methods to facilitate building reoccupancy after a terrorist
attack involving CBR agents. This research also involves developing procedures to use before
and after an attack that would minimize the spread of contaminants inside a building, protect
building occupants, and limit the area needing decontamination. An indoor contamination event
typically results in a significant quantity of building decontamination residue and this research
also addresses safe disposal of these residues. The program will produce science and
engineering products in FY 2009 to support EPA's National Response Plan and first-responders
in carrying out their homeland security missions. The following are FY 2009 product highlights:
• Performance information on commercially-available biological decontamination
technologies to assist decision making on cleanup following an attack.
• Strategies to contain fumigants used in the decontamination of buildings.
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 air
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.
The Agency will continue to upgrade and expand the RadNet air monitoring network. These
near real-time monitors will replace or augment the pre-existing system of 60 conventional air
samplers. Fixed stations will operate routinely and in conjunction with as many as 40 deployable
monitors following a radiological incident. Through FY 2009, EPA expects to install at least 100
monitors providing near real-time radiation monitoring coverage for over two-thirds of the most
populous U.S. cities. As the RadNet air monitoring network is upgraded and expanded, response
time and data dissemination will be reduced from days to hours and will provide the Agency and
first responders with greater access to data, improving officials' ability to make decisions about
protecting public health and the environment during and/or after an incident. Additionally, the
data will be used by scientists to better characterize the effect of a radiological incident.
75
-------
Improve National Radiological Lab Capacity and Capability:
In FY 2009, EPA will build upon work begun in FY 2006 to augment EPA's existing
radiological laboratory to meet emerging homeland security needs and serve as the Agency's
radiological reference laboratory. EPA will continue to upgrade the Agency's laboratory
response capability which will include a network of "go-to" state laboratories 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 continue a pilot project, begun in FY 2007, to improve
state radiological laboratory capacity through provision of additional laboratory instruments,
training, quality assurance testing, and audits of the selected state laboratories. EPA will
continue to do audits and performance evaluation studies to assess and continually improve
laboratory competency. As additional laboratories are audited, the number of available core
laboratories that can support the Agency will increase. In addition, a template for a common
radiological electronic data deliverable will be developed. This will help to ensure that the
laboratories report the data in a common format, making the compilation of data from various
laboratories more efficient.
Biodefense:
EPA will continue work to develop and validate methods to evaluate the efficacy of
antimicrobial products against bioterrorism agents, expanding this work to address unique
formulations, additional surface types, and additional bioterrorism agents and emerging
pathogens. The Agency will address critical gaps in efficacy test methodology and knowledge of
microbial resistance. In addition to vegetative bacteria, in FY 2009, EPA will address
threatening viruses and other emerging pathogens in environmental media. EPA will invest in the
development and evaluation of efficacy test protocols for products designed to control viruses in
the environment during decontamination. The development of "decon toolboxes" for specific
bioterrorism agents or classes of bacteria/viruses will continue into FY 2009.
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. 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.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of water
security initiatives.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
76
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
% of planned outputs
delivered in support of
support risk assessors
and decision-makers in
the rapid assessment of
risk and the
determination of
cleanup goals and
procedures following
contamination
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of efficient and
effective clean-ups and
safe disposal of
contamination wastes.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of
establishment of the
environmental National
Laboratory Response
Network
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
77
-------
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. In FY 2009, the program plans
to meet its targets 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, 4) the establishment of the National Laboratory Response
Network, and 5) validated standardized methods for evaluating efficacy of antimicrobial
products against a variety of biological pathogens. 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.
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 has developed new
outcome-oriented strategic and annual performance measures for this program in conjunction
with its 2007 PART assessment. The Radiation Program received a rating of "moderately
effective." The Office of Management and Budget provided two follow-up recommendations to
the program. The first was for the program to develop an efficiency measure that demonstrates
that the program utilizes total resources efficiently; this has been done. The second
recommendation encourages EPA to explore where the RadNet environmental monitoring
program best fits programmatically, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security.
Beginning in 2006, EPA's Homeland Security Research Program has been assessed by OMB's
PART as a component of other research program reviews.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$826.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$4,500.0) This reflects an increase to biodefense research related to anthrax including
sampling, decontamination, and risk assessment methods and models to aid first
responders in determining the extent of an outdoor release of anthrax as well as to aid in
the identification of appropriate decontamination options.
• (+$500.0) EPA's pesticide decontamination program will focus on reducing gaps in
laboratory networking and analytical capabilities related to biodefense research.
• (+$503.0 / +6.6 FTE) The majority of these FTE are a redirection from the Drinking
Water Research program to provide support for the development of provisional advisory
levels (PALs). This work will help to reduce uncertainty in the PAL determinations,
validate key assumptions made in the absence of data, and identify and/or address key
data gaps and research needs. Effects research associated with the Four Lab Study (a
study of the effects of disinfection by-product [DBF] mixtures produced during water
treatment using chlorination) is approaching completion and publication, so FTE
previously active in this area can support the PAL efforts.
• (-$100.0) This reduction reflects completion of certain activities associated with
increasing laboratory capability and capacity, such as acquiring updated radiological
78
-------
monitoring equipment and constituting, equipping, and deploying two radiation response
teams.
• (+$1,100.0) This increase provides funding for accelerated radiological threat agent
analyses through increased lab and sampling capacity/capability. With increased funding,
EPA will be able to respond to the next level of preparedness by being able to more
effectively respond to multiple events. EPA will demonstrate results through field scale
decontamination demonstrations and by increasing radiological sample throughput.
• (+$688.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
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 XIV 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.
79
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$6,219.1
$2,023.9
$10,372.2
$636.7
$19,251.9
2.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,345.0
$594.0
$7,870.0
$594.0
$15,403.0
3.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,248.0
$585.0
$7,747.0
$585.0
$15,165.0
3.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$6,415.0
$594.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,273.0
3.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$167.0
$9.0
$323.0
$609.0
$1,108.0
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 laboratory
infrastructure assets. Specifically, funds within this appropriation support security needs for the
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Agency will continue to provide enhanced physical security, 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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$9.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
Statutory Authority:
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604 and 629).
80
-------
Program Area: Indoor Air
81
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$5,201.2
$434.1
$5,635.3
37.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,429.0
$428.0
$5,857.0
39.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,363.0
$422.0
$5,785.0
39.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$5,488.0
$441.0
$5,929.0
39.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$125.0
$19.0
$144.0
-0.5
Program Project Description:
The Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE) in Las Vegas, NV is the
only Federal National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will target its radon laboratory resources to several key areas: 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.
EPA's radon technical assistance and environmental justice work are relatively low cost and
provide a proven benefit to radon professionals and organizations as well as to the underserved
community.
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. Please see http://www.epa.gov/radon for further information on
indoor air and radon.
82
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Total Cost (public and
private) per future
premature cancer death
prevented through
lowered radon
exposure.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Target
415,000
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of additional
homes (new and
existing) with radon
reducing features
FY 2007
Actual
late 2008
FY 2007
Target
190,000
FY 2008
Target
225,000
FY 2009
Target
265,000
Units
Homes
In FY 2009, EPA's goal is to add 265,000 homes with 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 prevent approximately 875 future premature cancer deaths
(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.
Program goals are the result of the total funding the program area receives through EPM, S&T,
and SIRG funding.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$9.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$10.0) This total reflects the net change including restoration of the FY 2008 Omnibus
1.56% rescission and will assist in supporting lab analyses of radon.
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.
83
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$21,425.6
$791.2
$22,216.8
64.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$21,440.0
$788.0
$22,228.0
68.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$21,632.0
$777.0
$22,409.0
68.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$19,180.0
$790.0
$19,970.0
63.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($2,452.0)
$13.0
($2,439.0)
-4.5
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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; and, when requested, EPA will conduct field measurements and assessments and
provide technical support for indoor air quality remediations. EPA's indoor air quality technical
assistance and training work is primarily focused toward tribal communities and meets an
identified need at a relatively low cost.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Average cost to EPA
per student per year in
a school that is
implementing an
Indoor Air Quality
plan.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Target
1.40
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Estimated annual
FY 2007
Actual
Data
FY 2007
Target
1100
FY 2008
Target
1100
FY 2009
Target
1000
Units
Number
84
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
number of schools
establishing indoor air
quality programs based
on EPA's Tools for
Schools guidance.
FY 2007
Actual
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of public that
is aware of the asthma
program's media
campaign.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
>20
FY 2008
Target
>20
FY 2009
Target
>20
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Additional health care
professionals trained
annually by EPA and
its partner on the
environmental
management of asthma
triggers.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
2000
FY 2008
Target
2000
FY 2009
Target
2000
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 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Target
3.90
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 2009, bringing the total number to
approximately 5.3 million people with asthma taking these actions. As part of this goal, EPA
will continue to work to reduce existing disparities between disproportionately impacted
populations and the overall population. EPA will also continue to work toward its long term
2012 goal that 40,000 primary and secondary schools (35% of schools) will be implementing
effective indoor air quality management programs consistent with EPA guidance.
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
85
-------
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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$9.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+4.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects in
addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support costs
across programs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990; Title IV of the SARA of 1986.
86
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
87
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$99,196.3
$4,522.1
$136.5
$23.8
$15,975.5
$119,854.2
497.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$91,019.0
$3,499.0
$177.0
$34.0
$16,338.0
$111,067.0
488.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$90,753.0
$3,453.0
$174.0
$33.0
$16,083.0
$110,496.0
488.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$94,360.0
$3,859.0
$162.0
$24.0
$16,872.0
$115,277.0
488.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,607.0
$406.0
($12.0)
($9.0)
$789.0
$4,781.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
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. This program houses all of the
critical IT infrastructure that allows rapid efficient communication exchange and storage of data,
analysis and computations. It also allows access to the scientific, regulatory, and best practice
infrastructure needed by agency staff, the regulated community, and the public. These functions
are integral to the implementation of Agency information technology programs and systems like
the Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX), and the Permit Compliance System
(PCS). Recent partnerships include portals projects with the Research and Development and Air
and Radiation offices to access scientific and program data. Because the IT/Data Management
function supports the entire Agency, funds are provided in each operating appropriation
including Science & Technology.
This program manages and coordinates the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and develops
analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound environmental decision-making.
The program implements the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov) responsibilities and 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
88
-------
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.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA's Information Technology community will continue to focus on improving the
Agency's use of technology, pursuing enterprise solutions and protecting privacy and security of
data holdings while improving delivery of information and services to partners and citizens. 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, Enterprise Content Management System
(ECMS), developing Environmental Indicators, and continuing to deploy enterprise-wide IT
infrastructure solutions.
The Environmental Information program's FY 2009 technology efforts have three major
components:
• OEI's efforts in the areas of Analytical Capacity and Indicators is expected to help
identify data gaps, and suggest areas where additional capacity is needed;
• Through use of the portal and Exchange Network, the Technology Initiative program will
increase the integration of quality data, streamline transactions to foster collaboration,
reduce the data entry burden, and improve decision making;
• OEI's Readiness to Serve initiative will build the capacity and infrastructure needed to
allow more EPA employees to telecommute or work safely and securely in the field.
High quality data and services are integral to the successful achievement of EPA's technology
efforts, and the broader IT/Data Management efforts. In FY 2009, EPA's IT/Data Management
program will continue to provide methods to manage the quality of its environmental data
collection, generation, and use. The primary goal of the EPA Quality System is to ensure that its
environmental data are of sufficient quantity and quality to support the data's intended use. As
part of the Agency's Quality System, policies and procedures have been developed to assist
individual data collectors, data users, and decision makers in defining their needs for data and
assessing data against these needs, and to provide EPA management with methods for overseeing
the quality-related activities of their programs. Like the larger IT/Data Management efforts, the
Quality System is closely coordinated with the Exchange Network and Information Security
programs. This relationship ensures quality data are available and accessible to promote sound
environmental decision-making.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
89
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$59.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$278.0) This increase reflects a restoration of funds that were reduced in this program
in FY 2008 for anticipated Agency-wide IT/infrastructure savings pending analysis of
final costing. The Agency has completed its analysis and reduced its estimate of the
savings associated with changes to IT/infrastructure. Funding changes have been
incorporated across the board for FY 2009 IT/infrastructure costs.
• (+$69.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
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.
90
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
91
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$327,954.1
$32,886.2
$28,672.1
$848.5
$500.4
$70,265.0
$461,126.3
399.2
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
Enacted
$297,189.0
$72,707.0
$26,511.0
$887.0
$488.0
$73,787.0
$471,569.0
415.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$311,068.0
$74,884.0
$26,931.0
$902.0
$496.0
$76,270.0
$490,551.0
410.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$13,879.0
$2,177.0
$420.0
$15.0
$8.0
$2,483.0
$18,982.0
-5.3
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 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. Because this program supports the entire Agency,
funds are included in most appropriations.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
For FY 2009, the Agency is requesting a total of $35,521 thousand for rent; $18,547 thousand
for utilities; $11,989 thousand for security; $262 thousand for transit subsidy; and $250 thousand
for regional moves in the S&T appropriation. The Agency also will continue to manage its lease
agreements with General Services Administration 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
92
-------
acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient passenger cars and light trucks to meet
the goals set by Executive Order (EO) 131493, Greening the Government through Federal Fleet
and Transportation Efficiency and EO 131234, Greening the Government through Efficient
Energy Management.
Lastly, EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by EO 13ISO5 Federal
Workforce Transportation. EPA will continue the implementation of the Safety and Health
Management Systems to ensure a safe working environment.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$442.0) Provides additional resources for increases in utility costs.
• (+$984.0) Provides additional resources for increases in security costs.
• (+$60.0) Provides additional resources for increases in transit subsidy costs.
• (+$250.0) Provides additional resources for increases in regional move costs.
• (+$441.0) This change reflects the restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects, it will help fund the projected increase in rent.
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).
3 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3149.htm
4 Information available at http://www.epa.gov/fedsite/eol3123.htm
5 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
93
-------
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
94
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$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
Enacted
$61,819.0
$3,250.0
$65,069.0
488.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$60,606.0
$3,453.0
$64,059.0
477.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,213.0)
$203.0
($1,010.0)
-11.2
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'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 re-evaluating 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, the 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.
Laboratory activity for the Pesticide Program supports the goal of protecting human health
through efforts at three 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 chemistry, analytical chemistry and genetically modified
organism (GMO) plant incorporated protectant methods to ensure the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA), the United States Geological Survey (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. For additional information, visit http://www.epa.gov/oppbeadl/labs/index.htm.
95
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2009, 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. Laboratories further support the estimation of human health risks from pesticide
use by operating the National Pesticide Standard Repository and by conducting chemistry and
efficacy testing for antimicrobials.
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 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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$15.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$188.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA 2; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA.
96
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$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
Enacted
$41,214.0
$2,087.0
$43,301.0
320.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$41,215.0
$2,216.0
$43,431.0
307.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$1.0
$129.0
$130.0
-13.1
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."
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, and
satisfies additional responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).6 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.7 In making its regulatory
decisions, the Agency considers both the risks and the benefits derived from the use of the
pesticide.
Laboratory activities for the Pesticides program support the goal of protecting the environment
from pesticide use through three pesticides 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 and
genetically modified organism (GMO) plant incorporated protectant methods to ensure the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS),
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.htm#Lnk07.
7 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.
97
-------
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2009, 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:
1) 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 also will 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;
2) Responding 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;
3) Conducting product performance evaluations of antimicrobials to remove inefficacious
products and eliminate unnecessary source effluent affecting the environment. The labs also
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 provide technical support and quality assurance support to regional, state and
other Federal laboratories in numerous ways. The laboratories are responsible for the posting
and upkeep of Residue Analytical Methods (RAMs) and Environmental Chemistry Methods
(ECMs) for food, feed, soil and water on the EPA web site. These methods are frequently the
only resource regional offices, state laboratories and other federal agencies have for current
methodology for the newest pesticides. The Microbiology Laboratory has also posted and
98
-------
maintains the methods used to determine the efficacy of microbiological products on the web
where there are approximately 400 methods currently available. (See
http://www.epa.gov/oppbeadl/methods/. Additionally, ACB and ECB respond to a number of
requests (approximately 90 per year) for method information. These requests primarily come
from state FIFRA laboratories.
The laboratories are also involved in the development of multi-residue analytical methods
(MRMs) - methods that are capable of measuring several similar pesticides simultaneously.
These MRMs are made available to state and Federal labs involved in residue monitoring and
enforcement activities.
The Analytical Chemistry Branch operates the EPA National Pesticide Standard Repository
(NPSR) which provides pesticide reference materials to Federal and state labs for enforcement
activities. The NPSR shipped approximately 6,000 analytical reference standards to enforcement
laboratories in FY 2007. Based on growth in number of standards requested from FY05 (5000
samples) and FY06 (5800 samples), the NPSR is expected to provide over 6500 standards in
FY08 and over 7000 in FY 09.
The labs also participate in AAPCO (American Association of Pest Control Officials) and
SFIREG (State FIFRA Issues and Research Evaluation Group) pesticide lab technical meetings
with state and industry chemists, responding to issues raised by enforcement laboratories.
Additionally, the laboratories are represented on and work through the AOAC (Association of
Analytical Chemists) to develop and implement consensus methods for microbiology and
chemistry.
In the area of quality assurance, the Agency's labs assist state and Federal partners in several
ways. Examples include providing review of Quality Management Plans for Homeland Security
laboratory projects conducted under Interagency Agreements (lAGs) with Food and Drug
Administration and the Department of Defense, providing technical assistance and oversight on
quality assurance and technical questions from FDA and DoD laboratories for a variety of
projects; providing quality assurance oversight to the FDA/White Oak facility for the Three Step
Method collaborative validation study (the FDA did not have a quality assurance unit in place at
the time of the study) and conducting a readiness review at ten collaborating laboratories
working on the validation of the Three Step Method. The Three Step Method quantitatively
measures the efficacy of antimicrobials for inactivating anthrax spores.
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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$107.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
99
-------
• (+$22.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA 2; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA.
100
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$12,114.0
$472.0
$12,586.0
90.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$11,959.0
$465. 0
$12,424.0
90.4
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$12,870.0
$495. 0
$13,365.0
93.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$911.0
$30.0
$941.0
3.3
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..." The
Realize the Value of Pesticides Program focuses on ensuring that adequate pesticides are
available both in emergency situations and through ongoing education and research in
environmentally friendlier pest remediation methods. 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.
EPA must ensure that such emergency uses will not present an unreasonable risk to human
health or the environment. EPA's timely review of emergency exemptions has avoided an
estimated $1.5 billion in crop losses per year, resulting from incidents of 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 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.
101
-------
Three laboratories support the pesticide program by providing data that are used by EPA to
inform regulatory decisions that recognize societal benefits: 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2009, 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 plant-incorporated protectants (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. The National Pesticide Standard Repository also 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 (PIPs). They also develop data to support FIFRA section 18
uses for new chemicals where efficacy data is non-existent (particularly biothreat agents,
including B. anthmcis, 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, guidance for
registration, and to provide technical support and training on testing methods and procedures.
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
102
-------
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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+14.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• ($16.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects in
addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA 2; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA.
103
-------
Program Area: Research: Clean Air
104
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$81,054.0
$81,054.0
236.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$79,993.0
$79,993.0
236.2
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$80,588.0
$80,588.0
236.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$595.0
$595.0
0.2
Program Project Description:
EPA's Clean Air Research Program 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),8
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 is primarily focused on particulate matter (PM),9 but includes research on ozone
and hazardous air pollutants, also known as air toxics. The program is guided by a series of
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reports10 and a multi-year plan that outlines research
needs and plans to meet those needs, and establishes milestones for evaluating the program's
progress.
The scientific findings from EPA's air research inform the development of Integrated Science
Assessments, formerly known as Air Quality Criteria Documents, which are periodic reports that
synthesize the science relevant to setting the NAAQS. These assessments are prepared by the
Human Health Risk Assessment program and used by EPA's Air and Radiation program to
develop and propose revisions to the NAAQS. The program also provides the science necessary
to support EPA Regional Offices and state regulatory agencies to identify and design effective
strategies to meet the standards. The standard setting and implementation research are also
informed by integrated research (i.e., across all media—air, water, and land) on the impacts of
climate change and mercury in the Research: Global Change and Research: Human Health and
Ecosystems programs respectively.
A subcommittee of EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory
committee comprised of qualified, independent scientists and engineers—conducted a peer
review of the particulate matter and tropospheric ozone research programs in calendar year 2005.
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.
9 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/pmresearch/.
10 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.
105
-------
The subcommittee also conducted a mid-cycle review of the program in September 2007, and
noted in their draft report that".. .the quality of the science was high, [and] that it was relevant to
Agency and user clients. It was felt that the science was also highly informative to the science
community itself, and that there was evident progress and Program evolution with the
advancement of the respective science fields."11
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2008, EPA integrated its air research activities around a multi-pollutant approach. This
reorganization was guided by recommendations from the NAS and the BOSC, as well as the
emerging research needs of EPA's Air and Radiation program. Also, a revised multi-year
research plan has recently been completed. The long-term goals of the integrated program are to
improve the Agency's setting of air quality standards, such as the NAAQS; air quality
management decisions by parties such as air resource boards and the states, which implement the
Clean Air Act; and to improve the understanding of how different sources of air pollution, via
atmospheric transportation and transformation, result in human exposure and health effects, such
as pulmonary and cardiovascular disease, as well as other noncancer and cancer outcomes. The
program will increasingly focus on how to address specific sectors contributing to air pollution in
a more holistic manner, with the goal of more effective and efficient strategies.
In FY 2009, EPA's Clean Air Research program will continue to study Americans' exposure to
air pollution, and the links between sources of pollution and health outcomes.12 The program
will develop computer models of emissions and the atmosphere, which are used to forecast air
quality at local and national scales; predict public exposure to air pollutants; and assist states in
developing and validating plans to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The program
also will study atmospheric chemistry, such as emission mixtures and the formation of secondary
pollutants through in-atmosphere reactions; develop ambient air sampling techniques; and
conduct research to correlate ambient measurements of emissions with both their sources and
with levels of human exposure.
The program's exposure research will emphasize development of a framework for assessing the
effectiveness of air pollution regulations and control strategies. EPA will continue its research to
understand air pollution near roads.13 In collaboration with the Federal Highways
Administration (FHWA), the program will focus on topics such as measuring and characterizing
emissions near roads; understanding the health effects from those pollutants; and characterizing
the effectiveness of low-cost mitigation options.
The integrated program will continue research to inform Agency, state and tribal air quality
managers about the sources of air pollution and methods for managing emissions.14 It will
investigate and apply advanced methods to measure the quantity and chemical composition of
airborne toxics and particulate matter emissions from human-made and natural sources. These
data support development of improved emission inventories, which provide essential data for
11 The final report will be available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/reports.htm
12 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/nerl/goals/air/.
13 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/nerl/goals/air/linkages.html.
14 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/.
106
-------
trend analysis, Regional, and local scale air quality modeling, regulatory strategies and impact
assessments, and human exposure modeling.15 These methods also support source
apportionment, which traces pollutants measured in ambient air to specific sources based on
chemical or structural markers in the pollutants that are unique to certain sources. The program
also will generate emission samples from various sources for use in exposure and toxicology
studies to understand how health effects vary by source, and develop and evaluate the cost and
performance of technologies capable of reducing emissions.
EPA will continue collaborate with the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), to develop advanced air quality models that simulate transport
and fate of pollutants in the atmosphere. These models are used by EPA and NOAA, state and
local governments, and the general air pollution research and monitoring community to
understand and forecast the location, composition and magnitude of air pollutants, and to
develop effective emission control policies and regulations. In the BOSC evaluation, the
program was commended for the strong relationships it has established with other funding
organizations. The research collaboration and coordination supported by the FY 2009 budget
request will ensure that the scientific and technical needs of the Air Research Program continue
to be met with minimal duplication of effort.
Further, the Agency will continue epidemiological, clinical, and toxicological studies of air
pollution's health effects.16 Research will focus on determining how the toxicity of particles
differs by particle size and chemical composition; understanding how emissions from different
sources affect health; the degree to which genes, lifestyle, age, and diseases like diabetes and
asthma affect susceptibility to air pollution; and understanding 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 also will conduct epidemiological studies of communities
with single emission sources or industrial sectors to improve understanding of how health
endpoints are connected to distinct sources of air pollution. In FY 2009, a priority area for the
program's health effects research will be improving scientific understanding of how particle size
influences particulate matter-associated health effects.
The program makes extensive use of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program's
competitive, peer-reviewed grants.17 In FY 2009, STAR will continue to fund five-year grants to
multi-disciplinary particulate matter research centers at five universities.18 STAR also will
continue to fund a ten-year grant (the largest in EPA's history) to the Multi-Ethnic Study of
Atherosclerosis-Air Pollution Study,19 which is examining links between long-term exposure to
particulate matter and heart attacks and strokes in 8,700 volunteers in six states, as well as a five-
year grant to the Health Effects Institute,20 a nonprofit research organization cosponsored by
EPA and the automotive industry to conduct independent research on the health effects of air
15 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html.
16 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/research/cleanair.html.
17 For more information, see: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/.
For more information, see http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/outlinks.centers/centerGroup/19/.
19 For more information, see http://depts.washington.edu/mesaair/.
20 For more information, see http://www.healtheffects.org/.
107
-------
pollution. The program also will fund grants to develop "dynamic" air quality management tools
so that local and state air quality managers can adapt emission control plans to changing
circumstances in near-real time.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the Research: NAAQS program as
"adequate" in the program's second Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review, which
was conducted in calendar year 2005 under the program title "National Ambient Air Quality
Standards Research."21 This rating demonstrates improvement from the program's previous
review—conducted in calendar year 2003—in which OMB rated it "results not demonstrated."
The improvement in score is attributable primarily to the fmalization of two long-term goals
toward which the program commits to work: (1) reducing uncertainty in the science that supports
standard-setting and air quality management decisions and (2) assessing the links between
sources of air pollution and health outcomes. In response to OMB's recommendations following
the 2005 review, the program is currently improving integration of its financial and performance
data, developing and finalizing methods for measuring progress toward the program's annual and
long-term measures, and implementing annual program reviews which will be completed in June
2008. The program also adopted a measure of its efficiency based on an earned value
management concept.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
NAAQS program
publications rated as
highly cited papers
FY 2007
Actual
32.9
FY 2007
Target
35.7
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established*
FY 2009
Target
33.9
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent progress
toward completion of a
hierarchy of air
pollutant sources based
on the risk they pose to
human health.
FY 2007
Actual
UD
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
50
FY 2009
Target
70
Units
Percent
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
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary.10001137.2005.html.
108
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
decisions.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
*No FY 2008 target was established because targets are set every two years.
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 1.6. Specifically,
the program provides sound science to support EPA's goal of clean air by conducting leading-
edge research and developing a better understanding and characterization of human health and
environmental outcomes.
The program gauges its annual and long-term success by assessing its progress on several key
measures. In FY 2009, the program strives to complete 100 percent of its planned actions related
to the long-term goal of reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standard setting and air
quality management decisions. Additionally, the program plans to complete additional work
toward a hierarchy of pollutant sources based on the linkages between source emissions and the
concentration of pollutants in ambient air, and the risk they pose to human health. Feedback
from the ongoing BOSC review is being used to refine this approach heading into FY 2009.
The program's bibliometric measure, which assesses the quality and impact of its scientific
publications compared to other publications in the same field, demonstrates that the programs'
publications are "highly cited" 3.3 times more than other publications. In FY 2009, the program
aims to further increase its percentage of "highly cited" publications to 33.9 percent. Achieving
these ambitious targets will ensure EPA continues to make significant progress toward providing
the research needed to meet its long-term clean air goals.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,754.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$116.0 / -0.4 FTE) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all
program projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel
or other support costs across programs.
• (-$1,150.0) This reflects a reduction in research that supports air quality standard setting
and links sources of emissions to human exposure to air pollutants and their health
endpoints. It includes reduced funding for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants
program to conduct research on particulate matter (i.e.., soot) that would inform EPA's
Air and Radiation program, which sets limits on the amount of particulate matter legally
allowed in the air. In the context of the larger research program and considering the
growing challenges the Agency faces, this reduction would minimize the impact to the
highest priority work in the air research program, such as studying emission sources,
investigating human exposure to air pollutants, developing methods to manage emissions,
and investigating air pollutants health effects.
• (-$125.0 / +0.6 FTE) This reflects the net result of realignments of travel, general
expense, and contract resources and shifts of FTE between the air, human health and
109
-------
ecosystems, land protection and restoration, drinking water, and computational
toxicology research programs to align with programmatic priorities.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; ERDDA.
110
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$20,449.9
$20,449.9
39.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$16,908.0
$16,908.0
32.6
FY 2008
Enacted
$19,688.0
$19,688.0
32.6
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$16,365.0
$16,365.0
32.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($3,323.0)
($3,323.0)
-0.4
Program Project Description:
EPA's Global Change research is assessment-oriented, focused on understanding the effects of
global change—particularly climate variability and change—on air quality, water quality, aquatic
ecosystems, human health and social well-being in the United States. The Agency strives to
produce timely and useful information, decision support tools and adaptation strategies that will
enable resource managers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to account for global change
when making decisions.
The program is also an active participant in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP),
the interagency Federal effort to improve scientific understanding of climate change.22 EPA's
program priorities are consistent with those of the CCSP, which coordinates and integrates
climate change research among 13 Federal departments and agencies, and CCSP's Strategic
Plan,23 which is being revised. The program also is guided by a multi-year research plan
developed by EPA, which is currently under revision.24
A subcommittee of EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)—a Federal advisory
committee comprised of qualified, independent scientists and engineers—conducted a peer
review of the program in 2005, and reported that the program "has provided substantial benefits
to the nation and that it is on course to make significant further contributions."25 The
subcommittee began a mid-cycle review of the program in January 2008.
For more information, see http://www.climatescience.gov/.
23 National Science and Technology Council, Strategic Plan for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
(Washington: NSTC, 2003). Available at: http://climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/
24 The program's multi-year plan is currently being revised. The prior plan (2003 version) is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/global.pdf.
25 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.
Ill
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will be in the final stages of revising its global change multi-year research plan
to focus on three long-term goals: (1) understanding how climate change will affect air quality in
the United States, (2) understanding how climate change will affect water quality and aquatic
ecosystems, and (3) supporting the statutory mandates of the CCSP to produce periodic
assessments of the effects of climate change. A component of the first two goals is to provide
support to decision makers with areas of responsibility likely to be affected by climate change,
such as air quality district managers, state environmental agencies, watershed managers, and
operators of waste and drinking water systems. Two key work products planned under the
program's new structure are comprehensive assessments of how climate change will affect U.S.
air quality and water quality. These assessments will help EPA's Air and Radiation program and
Water program, respectively, understand how climate change will affect their ability to meet
statutory, regulatory, and programmatic requirements and account for climate change's effects in
their future actions.
The U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates periodic scientific assessments of the
effects of global change.26 Section 106 of the act states that these assessments should integrate
and interpret the findings of the Federal government's climate change research; analyze the
effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land
and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and
biological diversity; analyze current trends in global change; and project major trends for the
next 25 to 100 years. From FY 2006 through FY 2008, EPA will participate in the development
of CCSP's Synthesis and Assessments Products (SAPs), serving as lead Agency for three of the
21 assessments.27 Two of the EPA SAPs are among those required to help the CCSP meet the
statutory requirements of the 1990 Act. In FY 2009, EPA will continue to participate in CCSP's
programmatic, assessment, and planning activities.
The program also will continue decision support efforts by inventorying and assessing the
climate-senstitive decisions made by local and state decision makers to identify which decisions
are most impacted by climate change and which decisions can benefit most from EPA's
scientific findings. A pilot effort in previous fiscal years developed this approach in a specific
region of the U.S.(the Chesapeake Bay); in FY 2009, the program will begin to cover the entire
country. The results from these assessments will help EPA prioritize its future climate change
work.
The program also will develop computer models that simulate how global change may affect
U.S. air quality,28 making progress toward its performance goal to complete a framework linking
global change to air quality. The program will model and evaluate potential adaptive responses
to climate change, such as changes in energy, pollution control, and transportation technologies,
and behavior in various regions and sectors of the U.S.29 Together, these efforts will help air
26 See 15 USC §2936.
27 For more information, see http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap-summary.php
28 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/nerl/goals/global/.
29 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/apb/greengas.htm.
112
-------
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 2009, STAR'S global change
component will focus on developing strategies to meet air quality standards that account for
future changes in climate and land use, investigating the sensitivity of U.S. water systems to
global change, and developing models to quantitatively assess the impacts of global change on
water systems.
In FY 2009, the program will shift its environmental and health effects research emphasis to
support a comprehensive assessment of how climate change will affect water quality, including
aquatic ecosystems. Previous efforts in this area have developed quantitative tools for
characterizing the health of coral reefs and studied how changes in water temperature and
ultraviolet radiation will affect corals and their symbionts, efforts that led the BOSC to conclude
that "the Program is well designed and the researchers have produced important and useful
results and products."
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the Global Change research program as
"adequate" in the program's first Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review, which was
conducted in 2006 under the title "Global Change Research." The rating is attributable primarily
to appropriate program purpose and design, strategic planning, program management, and
demonstration of some program results. As follow-up actions to the PART, OMB recommended
that the program (1) finalize independent, review-informed performance measures; (2) clarify the
program's framework and mission; (3) develop a means to measure the program's efficiency;
and (4) improve budget-performance integration. In response to these recommendations, the
program will begin collecting initial long-term measurement data during its mid-cycle BOSC
review in January, 2008, and will collect formal long-term measurement data during its
comprehensive BOSC review scheduled for late 2009. Once this baseline information is
available, the program will implement new BOSC-informed long-term measures. Additionally,
the program is revising its multi-year plan around a clearer framework, and has developed an
efficiency measure influenced by earned value management.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent progress
toward completion of a
framework linking
global change to air
quality.
FY 2007
Actual
75
FY 2007
Target
75
FY 2008
Target
85
FY 2009
Target
95
Units
Percent
113
-------
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Objective 4.4. Specifically, the
program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
community, and ecosystems, with a focus on global change.
The program gauges its annual and long-term success in meeting this objective by assessing its
progress on several key measures. In FY 2009, the program aims to further improve its
bibliometric analysis results by (1) increasing the percentage of program publications rated as
"highly cited" to 23 percent and (2) increasing the percentage of program publications rated as
"high impact" to 24.6 percent. Improvements in these measures demonstrate increased quality
and utility of the program's research. In addition, the program plans to meet 100 percent of its
planned outputs, and complete additional work toward a framework linking global change to air
quality. By meeting these targets, the research program will improve the Agency's ability to
make guidance and policy decisions related to global change.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$871.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (-$3,092.0) This reduction is a result of a Congressionally directed increase included in
the FY 2008 Omnibus for support of future rulemaking on greenhouse gases. Funds were
provided for research on global climate change research. This schedule is not sustained
in the FY 2009 budget request.
• (-$1,102.0 / -0.4 FTE) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all
program projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel
or other support costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
USGCRA; NCPA; ERDDA.
114
-------
Program Area: Research: Clean Water
115
-------
Research: Drinking Water
Program Area: Research: Clean Water
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$44,342.9
$44,342.9
202.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$48,548.0
$48,548.0
207.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$48,775.0
$48,775.0
207.2
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$45,283.0
$45,283.0
190.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($3,492.0)
($3,492.0)
-17.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Drinking Water Research Program provides sound scientific approaches for ensuring safe
and sustainable drinking water through integrated, multidisciplinary applied research. This
program provides methodologies, data, tools, models, and technologies in support of health risk
assessments and other needs pertaining to regulatory decisions under the Safe Drinking Water
Act's (SOWA) statutory requirements. Research also is targeted at implementation of regulatory
decisions, addressing simultaneous compliance issues, promoting the sustainability of water
resources, the reliable delivery of safe drinking water, and developing approaches to improve
water infrastructure. The program is designed around the water cycle and the research is
organized around five theme areas (assessment tools, source water protection, treatment
strategies, distribution/storage/infrastructure, and exposure/health effects). This structure
provides opportunities for integrating method development with health effects research and
applications in treatment technologies and water distribution systems.
Research in the Drinking Water Research Program is coordinated with the Agency's regulatory
activities and timelines. Current research topics include revisions to the Total Coliform Rule
(TCR) and implementation of recent regulatory decisions including the Ground Water Rule, the
Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule (DBP2), and the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule (LT2). Research is also targeted at supporting the Underground Injection
Control (UIC) regulations that pertain to geologic sequestration of carbon. Another major
component of the research program is addressing the information gaps associated with chemicals
and microorganisms that are on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). Several peer-reviewed
research strategies30'31 and guidance from external experts32'33'34'35 have provided input and
30 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).
31 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).
32 National Research Council. Classifying Drinking Water Contaminants for Regulatory Consideration.
Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press (2001).
33 National Academies of Science. From Source Water to Drinking Water: Workshop Summary. Washington, D.C.
The National Academies Press (2004).
116
-------
guidance for charting the research directions. The Agency also maintains a Drinking Water
Research Program (DWRP) Multi-Year Plan36 (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 2009
and beyond. These plans are subjected to rigorous peer review37 and address high priority
research questions related to the safety of drinking water and the safety, reliability, and
sustainability of drinking water infrastructure.
In 2007, the Drinking Water research program underwent a mid-cycle progress review by the
Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a Federal advisory committee comprised of qualified,
independent scientists and engineers.38 The BOSC was "favorably impressed" with the
program's revised structure and concluded that the formation of five thematic areas (i.e.
Assessment tools, Source water/Water resources, Treatment/Residuals, Distribution/Storage,
Water use/Health effects/Health outcomes) "allows focus on statutory requirements such as the
6-year review or the Contaminant Candidate List with the flexibility to address emerging
drinking water research issues such as nanotechnology". The Drinking Water research program
is adopting specific BOSC recommendations, including identifying opportunities for
collaboration and resource leveraging while continuing to plan anticipatory drinking water
research.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Drinking Water research program will focus on characterizing and managing
health risks associated with the sources, production and distribution of drinking water for public
water supplies. The research plan reflects a progressive shift from addressing single
contaminants towards developing exposure and health effects information that can be applied to
classes of contaminants. The thematic areas of the program are: assessment tools, source water
protection, treatment strategies, water distribution/storage/infrastructure systems, and
exposure/health effects. Anticipated research products include:
Assessment tools: Research is focused on developing tools for the analysis, monitoring,
screening and prioritization of drinking water constituents. Research will continue to develop
methods to measure CCL chemicals and pathogens to assist in assessing occurrence under
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rules and for evaluating the effectiveness of treatment
techniques. Exposure biomarkers for use in exposure and epidemiology studies, as well as
34 National Research Council. Indicators for Waterborne Pathogens. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies
Press (2004).
35 National Research Council. Public Water Supply Distribution Systems: Assessing and Reducing Risks—First
Report. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press (2005).
36 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/myp.htm.
37 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.
38 U.S. EPA, Board of Scientific Counselors. Mid-Cycle Review Of The Office Of Research And Development's
Drinking Water Research Program At The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Washington: EPA, 2007).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/OSP/bosc/pdf/dwmc082007rpt.pdf
117
-------
measurement methods (recovery, viability, speciation) will be improved for compliance
monitoring and CCL classification and prioritization. Specific projects include:
• Optimization and characterization of an integrated sample collection, concentration,
purification and detection for real-time quantitative detection methods for CCL related
organisms.
• Evaluation of the virulence factor activity relationships (VFARs) for characterizing CCL
pathogens.
Source Water Protection: Protection of surface water and ground water sources of drinking water
requires reliable monitoring methods coupled with implementation of best management practices
(BMPs). In addition to watershed research, protection of ground water sources will be a focus in
FY 2009 with an emphasis on underground injection control (UIC), aquifer storage and recovery
(ASR), and ground water recharge. Research will be directed towards answering key questions
associated with minimizing risks of geologic sequestration of carbon on underground sources of
drinking water (USDW). Projected research products include:
• Report on molecular microarrays for detection of non-pathogenic bacteria and bacterial
pathogens in drinking water source waters.
• State-of-the-science report on real-time early warning systems for source water
protection.
• Studies on ASR on the safety of drinking water and the impacts of subsurface CCh
storage on drinking water quality.
Treatment Stategies: The emphasis of the research will be on evaluating existing treatment
strategies for control of CCL contaminants, development of point-of-use/point-of-entry systems
for small systems, and simultaneous compliance issues. Research products include:
• Synthesis of information on arsenic removal technologies.
• Improved detection method(s) for CCL-related chemicals for use in Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulations.
Distribution/Storage/Infrastructure: Significant efforts will be focused on distribution systems.
Studies will be conducted to better understand the growth and colonization of pathogens in
distribution systems. The conditions promoting contaminant releases, such as arsenic and lead,
from distribution systems and treatment residuals will be characterized. Research started in FY
2007 under the "Water Infrastructure for the 21st Century" Initiative, will continue in 2009 and
will include focusing on field investigations and modeling of how distribution system
characteristics (age, materials, capacity) and management/operation practices (flushing, pressure,
hydrodynamics, storage, mixing of water sources, corrosion control) impact biofilms, water
chemistry, corrosion, and drinking water quality. The Agency will explore integrated approaches
for managing and assessing risks in the distribution system and the development of innovative,
real-time condition assessment, technology, repair or rehabilitation techniques. Research
products will report on advanced condition assessment for drinking water mains.
118
-------
Exposure/Health Effects: A major research focus is clarifying potential health effects of CCL
contaminants, waterborne disease outbreak analysis, and epidemiological studies, including the
potential exposure and health significance of newly identified regulated disinfection byproducts
(DBFs) and mixtures of DBFs, particularly from the use of alternatives to chlorine disinfection.
Specific research products include:
• Health effects associated with alternative disinfection processes and their byproducts.
• Epidemiology study on the illness rate for untreated groundwater and distribution
systems.
Within the 5 general thematic areas outlined above, the Drinking Water research program will
continue to provide support for the SDWA-mandated 6-year review of regulated contaminants
(e.g., draft revision of the Total Coliform Rule). Research on health-effects associated with
arsenic and DBFs will be winding down. On-going work from the arsenic demonstration
program will be synthesized in terms of case study costs and performance results. Results from
the comprehensive four-lab study on DBFs will be disseminated. Bench and pilot scale research
on simultaneous compliance issues resulting from the Ground Water Rule and the Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule will be continued. Modeling and field studies will be initiated to
address UIC research needs associated with geologic sequestration of carbon.
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.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the program as "adequate" in its 2005
Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) review, which was conducted under the program
title "Drinking Water Research."39 In response to OMB recommendations following the 2005
PART, the program is currently 1) working to set targets for the remainder of its long-term and
annual measures, and 2) improving its oversight of partners. To those ends, the program
collected initial long-term measurement data resulting from its mid-cycle BOSC review in May
2007, and will collect formal long-term measurement data during its comprehensive BOSC
review scheduled for fall 2009. These baseline data points will allow the program to set future
targets.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of Six Year
Review decisions.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
39
For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004371.2005.html.
119
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of
Contaminate Candidate
List Decisions.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 2.3 - Enhance
Science and Research. Specifically, the program conducts leading-edge, sound scientific research
to support the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to
contaminants in drinking water.
The program gauges its annual and long-term success by assessing its progress on several key
measures. In 2009, the program will strive to complete 100% of its planned outputs in support of
its long-term goals. In achieving these targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of
protecting human health through the reduction of human exposure to contaminants in drinking
water.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$691.0 / -0.3 FTE) This change reflects the net of restoring of the 1.56% rescission to
all program projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT,
travel or other support costs across programs.
• (-$300.0 / -3.6 FTE) This reflects completion of a portion of arsenic methods research
under the 2001 Arsenic Rule.
• (-$560.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for all
FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce costs.
• (-$941.0 / -13.1 FTE) Resources are being redirected to support research for the
development of provisional advisory levels within Homeland Security, work to support
contaminated sites and asbestos in the Land Protection and Restoration program, and the
advancement of water quality criteria for recreational waters and emerging water
contaminants in the Water Quality program. Within drinking water, health effects
research on disinfection byproduct mixtures is approaching completion and publication.
• (-$1,000.0) This reflects a Congressionally directed increase included in the FY 2008
Omnibus appropriation for carbon sequestration research. Research on the human health
effects and environmental impacts of carbon storage and sequestration will continue
through STAR grants in FY 2009.
Statutory Authority:
SOW A; CWA; ERDDA; MPRSA.
120
-------
Research: Water Quality
Program Area: Research: Clean Water
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$54,428.5
$54,428.5
249.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$56,454.0
$56,454.0
239.4
FY 2008
Enacted
555,573.0
$55,573.0
239.4
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$56,179.0
$56,179.0
236.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$606.0
$606.0
-2.6
Program Project Description:
The Water Quality research program is designed to support the Clean Water Act (CWA),
providing scientific information and tools to the Agency and others to help protect and restore
the designated uses of water bodies that sustain human health and aquatic life. The program
conducts research on the development and application of water quality criteria; the
implementation of effective watershed management approaches; and the application of
technological options to restore and protect water bodies using information on effective
treatment and management alternatives.
The Water Quality research program is responsive to the needs of EPA's Water program and
Regional Offices, which are the program's primary clients in developing research priorities. The
Agency maintains a Water Quality Research Program Multi-Year Plan40 (MYP) that outlines
steps and provides a timeline for meeting these needs along with related annual performance
goals and measures for evaluating progress. 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 Strategic Goal 2 of Clean Water
by creating the tools necessary for the Office of Water (OW) to establish water quality criteria
and respond when those criteria are not being met, this includes using research results to comply
with regulations and advance fundamental understanding. 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."41
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
40 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Water Quality Research Program Multi-Year Plan. Washington, B.C.: EPA.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/mvp.htm.
2 U.S. EPA, Board of Scientific Counselors, Review of the Office of Research and Development's Water Quality
Research Program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington: EPA, 2006). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/wq0605rpt.pdf
121
-------
Research efforts within the water quality research program are aligned with the Agency's
strategic objectives42 under the CWA to:
• promulgate protective standards,
• identify contaminant contributions to impaired waters,
• use tools to restore and protect the nation's waters with due consideration to point and
non-point sources of contamination, and
• maintain the nation's aging infrastructure.
In FY 2009, the Water Quality research program will support priorities set in consultation with
EPA's Water program and Regional offices, taking into account such factors as pollutant/stressor
type, water body types, and source of pollutants (e.g. agricultural versus urban). Research
activities are categorized within three areas: 1) Water Quality Integrity Research; 2) Watershed
Management Research; and, 3) Source Control and Management Research. Although the quality
of the nation's waters has shown improvement, threats to water quality remain, and new threats
continue to be identified.
Water Quality Integrity research priorities support regulatory driven needs related to revising
aquatic life guidelines, recreational water criteria, and developing criteria for emerging
contaminants (i.e. invasive species), nutrients, toxics, sediments, and multiple stressor effects on
stream biota, including research on biological condition gradients for Tiered Aquatic Life Uses
(TALU). Specific stressors include habitat alteration, nutrients, pathogens, and emerging
contaminants. EPA's water program is the major client for research products developed under
this research and will use them in the development and application of water quality criteria.
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 or fail to 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 water bodies, research is
required to identify nutrient responses based on geographic region, water body type, and
designated use. Research will continue toward linking stressor-response relationships to a
biological condition gradient and TALU framework, while providing information on technical
guidance for the development of nutrient water quality criteria for coastal wetlands and estuaries
and Great Lakes.
The Water Quality program supports the adoption and implementation of watershed management
approaches by States and Tribes as they require strong standards, monitoring, Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) determinations, and implementation programs, including best-management
practices, restoration, and TMDL watershed plans. Watershed Management Research supports
TMDL allocation processes with the development of information and integrated water quality
and quantity modeling and monitoring tools. This research supports assessing condition,
diagnosis of impairment, mitigation, and achieving success, including support for CWA Section
42 U.S. EPA, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan, Washington, D.C.:EPA.
Available at www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.html
122
-------
305(b) reporting, use attainability analyses identifying designated uses, and TMDL adaptive
management. Research efforts in this area include Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia research aimed at
developing risk-based forecasting capability to aid water resource managers in making
scientifically defensible nutrient management decisions to reduce the hypoxia problem, restore
the natural habitats, and restore food web assemblages along the Gulf coast. Other research
addresses identifying the locations and connectivity of headwater streams and wetlands
(complimentary research on how and what role headwater streams and isolated wetlands play in
reducing pollutant loads, and their effect on downstream quality is being conducted under the
Ecological Research program to enhance our understanding of the benefits and value of
ecological services); implementation support for suspended and bedded sediments frameworks;
and technical assistance for watershed modeling and decision support tools. Key users of these
products will be at the regional, state, and local level.
In addition, existing models of pollutant transport and fate will be expanded to allow the
evaluation of alternative strategies for restoring and/or protecting local and state watersheds.
Particular emphasis will be placed on strategies for nutrient control in rural/agrarian settings and
on strategies for pollutant control in urban settings. Approaches will be studied for effectively
monitoring the reduction in the water column pollutants and improvements in aquatic systems
and for demonstrating the effectiveness of protecting designated uses from future development or
other impacts.
The President's initiative to preserve and restore wetlands will be supported with research on
how wetland processes assimilate nutrient contaminants. The water quality research that defines
wetland performance is fundamental to the implementation of water quality trading programs. It
will include a 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 and will inform the protection and restoration of wetlands. Economic assessments of the
use of wetlands in water quality trading also will be conducted.
Research on the best management of manure is needed to ensure that environmentally
responsible practices are available, and will continue in support of EPA's Wastewater
Management program. Field studies of CAFOs will determine the magnitude of releases to
ground waters and surface waters and evaluate control options with emphasis on nutrient and
pathogen contaminants. This work will support the development of effective TMDLs and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
Source control and management research priorities will develop information and tools to
characterize, control, and manage point and non-point sources of water quality impairment.
Research addresses aging infrastructure, green infrastructure, wet weather flows and residuals
management. Major users of these products will be the Agency, states, regional authorities and
municipalities.
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 (i.e./'blending") with flows from the secondary
123
-------
treatment units or discharging it directly into waterways from the treatment plant. ORD will
evaluate findings of studies of the fate of pathogen indicators in three POTWs and conduct in-
house research to understand the fate of pathogens and pathogen indicators and the effectiveness
of destroying pathogens in blended effluents. This will help determine the extent of human
health and environmental effects caused by wet weather events. 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.
Research on the performance of non-point source best management practices (BMPs) will be
conducted in order to provide information to watershed managers and others for the more cost-
effective reduction of pollutant loading to surface waters. Particular emphasis will be placed on
green infrastructure and on the variation of BMP cost and performance with geographical and
other major influencing variables.
In FY 2009, research will continue the development of innovative solutions to manage the
nation's aging wastewater infrastructure. Research started in FY2007 under the "Water
Infrastructure for the 21st Century" initiative 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 demonstrate
technologies and approaches for new and innovative condition assessment, rehabilitation, and
design of wastewater collection systems and comprehensive asset management. This research
will support EPA in developing policy and revolving funds allocation decisions to address this
multi-billion dollar problem faced by the Nation, and will support utilities and other stakeholders
involved in meeting community watershed management goals and in the cost-effective
assessment, rehabilitation and management of their systems.
EPA will continue to support the Pathogens Equivalency Committee. This effort evaluates
innovative approaches to sewage sludge treatment for the purposes of determining whether they
meet requirement of Part 503 (biosolids) regulations.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the program as "adequate" in its 2006
(PART) review, which was conducted under the program title "Water Quality Research."43 This
"adequate" rating was supported by findings that the program had long-term and annual output
performance measures in place that reflected the purpose of the program, as well as a preliminary
output efficiency measure. In response to OMB recommendations following the 2006 PART,
the program has established a process by which the BOSC will assign a progress rating to each
program long-term goal as part of its reviews. These ratings will provide the data for new
program long-term outcome measures that will be instated. Using these baseline ratings, the
program will be able to set appropriate future year targets. Additionally, to address OMB's
recommendation that the program establish an outcome-oriented efficiency measure, EPA has
initiated a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study to determine the most appropriate
approach.
43 For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004306.2006.html
124
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Peer-reviewed
publications over FTE.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
.82
Units
Publications
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal
#1) delivered
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal
#2) delivered
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs (in support of
WQRP long-term goal
#3) delivered
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 2.3- Enhance
Science and Research. Specifically, the program conducts leading-edge, sound scientific research
to support the protection of human health through the reduction of human exposure to
contaminants in fish and shellfish, and recreational waters, and to support the protection of
aquatic ecosystems.
In 2009, 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
resources. Additionally, the program strives to improve its number of publications per FTE to
.82. In achieving these targets, the program will better enable EPA to meet its goals.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,042.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs.
125
-------
• (-$436.0) 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.
• (-2.6 FTE) This decrease reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; ODBA; SPA; CVA; WRDA; WWWQA; MPPRCA; NISA; CZARA; CWPPRA; ESA;
NAWCA; FIFRA; TSCA; ERDDA.
126
-------
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems
127
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$35,018.0
$3,926.4
$38,944.4
176.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$38,856.0
$3,972.0
$42,828.0
182.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$38,334.0
$3,910.0
$42,244.0
182.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$39,323.0
$3,325.0
$42,648.0
178.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$989.0
($585.0)
$404.0
-3.5
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).
Health assessments generated by EPA's Research and Development program are used
extensively by EPA Program and 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.
Three complementary areas comprise the health assessment program:
1) The Integrated Risk Information System and other priority health assessments,
2) Risk assessment guidance, methods, and model development, and
3) Integrated Science Assessments of criteria air pollutants.
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and other health hazard assessments: Peer
reviewed, qualitative and quantitative health hazard assessments are prepared on
environmental pollutants of major relevance to EPA's regulatory mandates. These
assessments are used by EPA's Program and Regional Offices to support their decision-
making, and they are also disseminated to the public, principally on the IRIS internet
database.44 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 2007, more than 540 health hazard assessments were available
through IRIS.
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's Program and Regional Offices. These scientific products are
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/iris.
128
-------
externally peer reviewed and disseminated through the published literature, EPA web sites,
and incorporation in IRIS assessments.
Integrated 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 Integrated
Science Assessments (formerly Air Quality Criteria Documents) are major risk assessments
that undergo rigorous external peer review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC).
This research program is guided by the Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan45
(MYP), which provides detail on the assessment and methods development products planned
under this program. The MYP also outlines research needs and priorities for making decisions
central to EPA's implementation of its statutory responsibilities and to its mission to protect human
health and the environment. 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 plans46 (e.g., Human Health Research Strategy, Drinking
Water MYP, Clean Air MYP) 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, enhancing
communication, and improving capabilities to provide environmental assessment resources in
response to significant events. A subsequent BOSC subcommittee program review began in
November 2007. This prospective and retrospective review is evaluating the program's
relevance, quality, performance, and scientific leadership. The BOSC's evaluation and
recommendations will provide guidance to EPA to help plan, implement, and strengthen the
program over the next five years.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Agency will continue to support IRIS and other health hazard assessments by:
• Completing several health hazard assessments of high priority chemicals for interagency
review or external peer review and posting several finalized assessments on the internet;
and
• Consulting with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on critical risk assessment
methods development and assessment approaches.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/hhramvpdraft.pdf.
46 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/researchstrategies.htmtfrs01.
129
-------
In the area of risk assessment guidance, methods and models, the Agency will support
improvements in the following areas:
• Approaches for applying mode of action information in risk assessments;
• Approaches for characterizing risks to susceptible populations;
• Approaches for characterizing environmental exposures for use in risk assessments;
• Approaches to quantification (e.g., PBPK and BBDR modeling, categorical regression,
meta analysis approaches);
• Variability and uncertainty analysis (e.g., Bayesian and other approaches);
• Approaches for applying cumulative risk assessment principles to health assessments
(e.g., whole mixture and component based approaches)
In FY 2009, the Agency will support the NAAQS process:
• Developing and implementing a process to identify, compile, characterize, and prioritize
new scientific studies for "Integrated 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; and
• Delivering final Ecological Integrated Science Assessments for Particulate Matter, for the
NOx/SOx secondary standards, and for Carbon Monoxide (draft) 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.
These continued investments will allow the human health risk assessment (HHRA) program to
make significant progress toward its long-term goals, providing state-of-the-science health
hazard assessment information. The work supports risk assessment models, methods, and
guidance to inform decisions and actions to protect human health from risks posed by
environmental pollutants.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the HHRA program as "moderately
effective" in a 2006 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review, which was conducted
under the program title "Human Health Risk Assessment."47 This "moderately effective" rating
was attributed to the fact that the program had long-term, annual, and efficiency measures in
place and that the program exhibited strong financial management and budget-performance
integration. In response to OMB recommendations following the 2006 PART, the program is
currently 1) expanding its efficiency measures, 2) developing and implementing revisions to the
IRIS review process, 3) investigating alternative approaches for measuring progress related to
providing timely, high quality scientific assessments, and 4) instituting regular independent
program reviews. The program has taken action on each of these recommendations. For
example, for a BOSC review that began in November 2007, it developed a BOSC charge
including questions to evaluate HHRA's effectiveness and relevance to key risk management
decisions. The program also is examining how best to expand its efficiency measure to ensure
consistency with other approaches being developed across EPA's Research and Development
*7 For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10004308.2006.html
130
-------
program. In 2008, the program will improve the IRIS prioritization process. Accordingly, the
program will revise its performance measure and targets to more appropriately capture relative
priorities of assessments.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Average cost to
produce Air Quality
Criteria/Science
Assessment
documents.
FY 2007
Actual
5,533
FY 2007
Target
5,386
FY 2008
Target
3,796
FY 2009
Target
4,235
Units
Average Cost
in Dollars
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of Air Quality
Criteria/Science
Assessment
documents.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
90
FY 2008
Target
90
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of HHRA
health assessments*.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
90
FY 2008
Target
90
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
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
FY 2007
Actual
68
FY 2007
Target
106
FY 2008
Target
90
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Days
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of HHRA
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
90
FY 2008
Target
90
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percent
131
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
Technical Support
Documents.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
*Currently, the 2009 planned outputs include delivering 16 health hazard assessments to interagency or external
peer review.
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4. Specifically,
the program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people and
communities.
The program gauges its annual and long-term success in meeting this objective by assessing its
progress on several key measures. In 2009, the program plans to meet at least 90% of its planned
outputs in support of 1) Integrated Science Assessment summaries (formerly Air Quality Criteria
Documents), 2) HHRA Health Assessments (completing health hazard assessments of high
priority chemicals for interagency review or external peer review and posting finalized
assessments on the internet), and 3) HHRA Technical Support Documents.
The program is re-examining its productivity and efficiency measures in response to expected
feedback from its recent BOSC review and the National Academy of Sciences study of the best
approaches for measuring the efficiency of research.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$58.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (-$270.0 / -3.7 FTE) This reflects a reduction in funding for lower priority research on
risk assessment methods, such as research supporting the revision of inhalation reference
concentration (RfC) methodologies.
• (+$1,201.0 / +0.2 FTE) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all
program projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel
or other support costs across programs. These funds also will be used in support of risk
assessment research.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; SOW A; CWA; TSCA; FIFRA; CERCLA; SARA; FQPA; ERDDA.
132
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$12,159.5
$12,159.5
35.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,103.0
$15,103.0
34.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$12,135.0
$12,135.0
34.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$14,863.0
$14,863.0
32.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,728.0
$2,728.0
-1.6
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 while reducing the use of
animals during toxicological testing.
EPA's Computational Toxicology Research Program (CTRP) has three long term goals: 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 strategic directions of CTRP are highly consistent with the report recently released
by the National Research Council entitles "Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first Century: A
Vision and a Strategy" (NRC, 2007).
The Agency has developed a peer-reviewed Framework for a Computational Toxicology
Research Program,48 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
48 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.
133
-------
to EPA and the BOSC. The BOSC expressed strong support for the program's 2006-2008
Implementation Plan and ongoing research of the CTRP in their 2006 review (see
http://www.epa.gov/comptox/bosc_review/2006/index.html). A recent review of the program
by the BOSC held in December 2007 focused specifically on the topics of information
management, high throughput screening, dose response models for arsenic, and the virtual liver
programs. Preliminary comments at the review suggested strong support for this seminal work.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Consistent with the research Framework and program implementation plans, the CTRP will
focus in three key areas in FY 2009: 1) information technology; 2) chemical prioritization and
categorization tools; and 3) systems biology models. Greater emphasis will be placed on using
systems biology based approaches to advance health-based assessments.
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" data. In FY 2009, the Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity
Database project (DSSTox) will begin expanding involvement of data generation efforts with the
1) ToxCast program, a chemical prioritization project being developed by NCCT; 2) the National
Toxicology Program, an interagency program within the Department of Health and Human
Services, whose mission is to evaluate agents of public health concern by developing and
applying tools of modern toxicology and molecular biology; and 3) high-throughput screening
techniques, a system to rapidly and efficiently test large batches of chemicals for bioactivity
utilizing robotics and automation applied to molecular biology and assay methods. Efforts also
will include collaboration with European counterparts. The DSSTox project will be an important
structure-annotated and structure-searchable summary toxicity data conduit to other toxicology
systems in this program. In addition, a data management system, Aggregated Computational
Toxicology Resource (ACToR), is being developed to handle the needs of the CTRP program,
including ToxCast, DSSTox, and virtual liver. This system will consist of several databases and
computer applications for data access and analysis. In FY 2009 and beyond, the ACToR system
will begin to integrate other types of quantitative biological and toxicological data on chemicals.
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 is a multi-component effort launched in FY 2007. As a result of this
research the Agency is obtaining high-throughput screening data on 320 chemicals of known
toxicological profiles. More than 400 endpoints are being generated on each chemical through
nine research contracts and one Interagency Agreement (with the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) Molecular Libraries Initiative at the National Chemical Genomics Center). Fingerprints
of biological activity associated with differing toxicological profiles will be developed from this
database. The ToxCast approach is highly consistent with the recent recommendations of the
National Research Council for a transformation in toxicology involving modern biological tools.
134
-------
In FY 2008, ToxCast™ linkages will be expanded as the US has the lead role in OECD's
Molecular Screening Initiative that will bring a number of international partners into the research
program. In FY 2008 and beyond, plans are to begin Phase II of ToxCast™ that will profile the
activities of up to 1000 chemicals in order to broaden the chemical diversity used in Phase 1 and
to evaluate the predictive nature of bioactivity signatures developed in that phase. With
successful completion of Phase II, ToxCast™ technologies can be applied to chemicals of
concern to EPA program offices.
The Agency also will conduct research focusing on molecular modeling to predict and
understand chemical toxicity. In FY 2009, the focus will shift towards the consideration of other
interaction targets in biological macromolecules such as binding sites in receptors and enzymes
that play a role in reactive processes.
Systems Biology Models: Modeling now plays a crucial role in practically all areas of biological
research. Systems models integrate information at all levels of organization and aid in bridging
the source-to-outcome gap and in conducting quantitative risk assessments. In FY 2009, this
research 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;
• Utilize systems-modeling approaches for the latest biological, chemical, and exposure
data for quantitative risk assessment;
• 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
• Coordinate experimental studies with biologically based dose-response models to
understand the low dose effects of arsenic on key biological systems (collaborative effort
with the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory).
• Implement the Virtual Liver Project that will provide (1) a framework that coherently
integrates mechanistic information and data to elucidate perturbations induced by
chemicals (2) inference tools for extrapolating mechanisms across life stages, species and
susceptible populations; and (3) quantitative tools for predicting the risk of adverse
outcomes in humans through dynamic simulation (collaborative effort with the National
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory).
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4. Specifically,
the program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions with a focus on human,
community, and ecosystem health.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4: Enhance Science and Research.
Specifically, the program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information,
models, methods, and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions with a focus on
135
-------
human, community, and ecosystem health. Currently, there are no performance measures for
this specific program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,776.0) This increase supports computational toxicology research. The resources
provide the minimum funding necessary to deliver timely, critical research results for the
Agency, developing more efficient methods to evaluate chemical toxicity. Such research
includes Phase II of ToxCast™,49 which upon successful completion can be applied to
chemicals (as an innovative alternative to evaluating chemicals) of concern to EPA
program offices. Another important result of this research will be reducing the reliance
on the use of animals for toxicity testing.
• (+$356.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (-$404.0 / -1.6 FTE) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all
program projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel
or other support costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; SOW A; ERDA.
49 ToxCast is an international recognized pioneering research program using tools developed in the pharmaceutical
industry for drug discovery to detect the critical biological targets of chemicals at cost orders of magnitude less than
traditional toxicity testing approaches. ToxCast is central to our collaborative efforts with the National Toxicology
Program of NIEHS and the NIH Chemical Genomics Center of the National Human Genome Research Institute
(NHGRI)
136
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$10,476. 7
$10,476.7
53.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,131.0
$10,131.0
54.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,317.0
$10,317.0
54.4
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$9,502.0
$9,502.0
50.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($815.0)
($815.0)
-4.3
Program Project Description:
Research in direct support of EPA's endocrine screening and testing programs (mandated under
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 and the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments50 (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.
Research is guided by the Research Plan for Endocrine Disrupters, which was developed with
participation from major clients and outlines research needs and priorities.51 The Agency also
maintains a multi-year plan (MYP)52 for Endocrine Disrupters that outlines steps for meeting
these needs, as well as annual performance goals and key research outputs for evaluating
progress.
In December 2004, the Endocrine Disrupters research program was reviewed by a subcommittee
of EPA's research advisory committee, the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), which
commended the progress and direction of the research and provided recommendations for further
partnerships.53 Consistent with BOSC recommendations, EPA will take a leadership role in the
application of "omics" technologies (e.g., genomics, proteomics, and metabonomics studies),
focusing research on understanding mechanisms of action and extrapolation across species by
applying "omics" approaches. In the first mid-cycle review, which began in August 2007, the
50 SDWA Section 1457.
51 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Research Plan for Endocrine Disrupters. Washington, D.C.: EPA (1998).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/ORD-EDR-Febl998.pdf.
52 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Multi-Year Plan for Endocrine Disrupters. Washington, D.C.: EPA (2003).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/mvp/edc.pdf
53 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, EDC Research Program Review. Washington, D.C. (2004).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/edc0504rpt.pdf: updated draft 2007 available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp^sc/subcomm-edcs_mid.htm#documents.
137
-------
subcommittee described the updated draft MYP as "excellent" and indicated that the Program's
progress exceeded its expectations.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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 help 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)54. This research is also
consistent with the newly released NAS report on "Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first Century:
A Vision and a Strategy" which recommended that the Agency move toward using new
technologies to prioritize and screen for chemicals.55 Other important areas of research to be
continued in FY 2009 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; and
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.
The program's long-term performance measures are: (1) to determine the extent of the impact of
endocrine disrupters on humans, wildlife, and the environment to better inform the Federal and
scientific communities; and (2) to reduce the uncertainty regarding the effects, exposure,
54 FY 2008 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities memo by J.Marburger and S. McMillin;
August 16, 2007.
55 National Academies Press (2007). Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11970#toc.
138
-------
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.
OMB rated the research program as "adequate" in its 2004 Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) review, which was conducted jointly with the Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances program under the title "Endocrine Disrupters."56 This rating was supported by
findings that the program was free of major design flaws, had a clear purpose, and was
reasonably well-managed. In response to OMB recommendations following the PART, the
program has articulated its R&D priorities to ensure compelling, merit-based justifications for
funding allocations. Additionally, the Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances program has
compiled baseline data for its efficiency measure and continues to collect data to serve as a
comparison to its baseline.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Improved protocols for
screening and testing
FY 2007
Actual
3
FY 2007
Target
6
FY 2008
Target
2
FY 2009
Target
0
Units
Reports
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Effects and exposure
milestones met
FY 2007
Actual
5
FY 2007
Target
4
FY 2008
Target
5
FY 2009
Target
9
Units
Reports
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Assessment milestones
met
FY 2007
Actual
0
FY 2007
Target
0
FY 2008
Target
0
FY 2009
Target
0
Units
Reports
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Risk management
milestones met
FY 2007
Actual
2
FY 2007
Target
3
FY 2008
Target
1
FY 2009
Target
1
Units
Reports
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4. Specifically,
the program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
community, and ecosystems, with a focus on endocrine-active pesticides and toxic chemicals.
As a result of the 2004 PART process, the program has developed long-term performance
measures. In addition, the research program has developed annual performance indicators that
56
For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10002280.2004.html
139
-------
monitor the completion of its key research outputs. These products will ultimately be delivered
to the Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances program for evaluating the potential of
chemicals to cause endocrine-mediated effects.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$350.0) This reduces additional Congressionally directed funds included in the FY
2008 Omnibus appropriation for research on EDCs.
• (-$204.0) 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.
• (-$253.0 / -4.3 FTE) The development of validated tiers I and II endocrine disrupter
screening protocols will be completed at the end of FY 2008, as announced in the Federal
Register in July 2007. In FY 2009, these FTE will be redirected to support high priority
investigations of the health effects of asbestos under the Land Protection and Restoration
program. This also includes a realignment of resources that provide organization-wide
support.
• (-$8.0) This change reflects the 1.56% rescission to all program projects in addition to
technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support costs across
programs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; ERDDA; FIFRA; TSCA; FQPA; SOW A; CWA; RCRA; CERCLA; PPA.
140
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$12,231.1
$12,231.1
4.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$8,438.0
$8,438.0
2.7
FY 2008
Enacted
$9,845.0
$9,845.0
2.7
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$8,887.0
$8,887.0
2.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($958.0)
($958.0)
-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. The programs are:
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship Program:57 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:58 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 EPA for at least five years after graduation.
Environmental Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program:59 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 public policy.
Environmental Public Health Fellowship Program:60 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 self-designed
projects that involve environmental public health.
57 For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/fellow.
58 For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/fellow.
59 i
60
For more information, see http://fellowships.aaas.org/01 About/01 Partners.shtmMEPA.
For more information, see http://www.asph.org/document.cfm?page=751&JobProg ID=1.
141
-------
EPA Marshall Scholarship Program:61 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.
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."62
FY 2009 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
program also will select and arrange hosting for AAAS and ASPH recipients and support a
portion of eligible Marshall Scholarship recipients.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Objective 5.4: Enhance Science and Research.
Currently, there are no PART performance measures for this specific program project, as the
program has not been subject to PART review. However, the program collects follow-up data on
former fellows, and is working to develop appropriate metrics for future years.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$538.0) EPA is redirecting a portion of the Greater Research Opportunities (GRO)
grants program's budget in the Human Health and Ecosystems research program to the
GRO fellowships program. This realignment will allow the GRO program to better meet
the Agency's goals.
• (+$77.0 / -0.1 FTE) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all
program projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel
or other support costs across programs.
61 For more information, see http://www.marshallscholarship.org/applicationepa.html.
62 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.
142
-------
• (-$1,562.0) This reduction is a result of a Congressionally directed increase included in
the FY 2008 Omnibus for Science to Achieve Results (STAR) fellowships.
• (-$11.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; CWA; FIFRA; NCA; RCRA; SOW A; TSCA; ERDDA.
143
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$167,910.0
$167,910.0
520.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$145,046.0
$145,046.0
497.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$153,032.0
$153,032.0
497.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$144,742.0
$144,742.0
478.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($8,290.0)
($8,290.0)
-18.7
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) identify the impacts of human activities on
ecosystem services, measure the relationship between human well-being and ecosystem services,
and provide tools for policy makers and managers to protect and restore ecosystem services
through informed decision making at multiple spatial and temporal scales. The Human Health
and Ecological Research Program also supports mercury research, advanced monitoring
research, nanotechnology research, exploratory research, and the Agency's Report on the
Environment (ROE).
Both the human health and ecosystems research programs are continually evolving. The Human
Health research program is working to maintain its success in "reducing uncertainties in risk
assessment" while orienting the program toward "developing and linking indicators of risk"
along the source-exposure-effects-disease continuum that can be used to demonstrate reductions
in human risk. This strategic shift is designed to include research that addresses limitations,
gaps, and challenges articulated in the 2003 and 2007 Reports on the Environment. The
Ecological research program is transitioning from a focus on monitoring ecosystem conditions to
a focus on understanding and protecting ecosystem services, which represents a natural
progression that builds upon existing work that seeks to inform decision-making processes.
Research is guided by the "Human Health Research Strategy"63 and the "Ecological Research
Strategy,"64 which were developed in collaboration with major clients (e.g., EPA's Program and
Regional Offices). These strategies outline the program's research needs and priorities. Under
this program, several multi-year plans (MYPs)65 (e.g., human health, ecological research, and
mercury) convey research priorities and approaches for achieving goals and objectives. MYPs
63 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Human Health Research Strategy. Washington, DC: EPA.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/humanhealth/HHRS final web.pdf.
64 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/eco.pdf.
65For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.
144
-------
outline the steps for meeting client research needs, as well as annual performance goals and key
research outputs for evaluating progress.
The Human Health research program and the Ecological research program both underwent
successful reviews by EPA's research advisory committee, 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."66 The BOSC also commented that these planned actions and initiatives provide "great
potential for significant impacts in the future." In 2007, mid-cycle reviews of each program
resulted in a rating of "Meets Expectations" for work completed to date.67
The BOSC review of the Ecological research program found that the program's "strategy still
recognizes the importance of continuing ORD's support to ensure that appropriate environmental
and ecological data are collected in monitoring programs, especially use of sampling and
analysis approaches that can be corroborated by ORD research" and that "the evolving emphasis
on ecosystems services and value is appropriately laid out and justified."68
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Human Health Research
In FY 2009, EPA is proposing a program designed to identify indicators of risk (effects,
susceptibility, and exposure indicators) that can be used to demonstrate reductions in human
health risks (i.e., evaluate effectiveness of risk management or regulatory decisions). Of the total
$75 million requested in FY 2009 for Human Health research, $57 million is requested for
research in this area. This research will focus on the development of sensitive and predictive
methods to identify viable bioindicators of exposure, susceptibility, and effect that could be used
to evaluate public health impacts at various geospatial and temporal scales. Research also will
focus on developing biologically based models to predict biological effects based on internal
dose.
EPA will continue to support research on mode of action information that can be used to reduce
reliance on default assumptions in chemical risk assessments, particularly as related to selection
of appropriate dose-response models for risk assessment and protection of vulnerable
populations. Such research will inform the re-evaluation of acceptable levels of arsenic and its
metabolites in drinking water, as well as the risk assessments of cancer and non-cancer effects of
conazoles and structurally related fungicides. Additional research efforts will develop emerging
molecular methods and systems biological approaches to identify critical toxicity pathways, e.g.,
66 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.
67 U.S. EPA, Board of Scientific Counselors. Mid-Cycle Review of the Office of Research and Development's
Human Health Research at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Washington: EPA, 2007). Available at:
http://epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/hhmc072307rpt.pdf.
68 U.S. EPA, Board of Scientific Counselors, Mid-Cycle Review of the Office of Research and Development's
Ecological Research at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Washington: EPA, 2007). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/OSP/bosc/pdf/ecomc082307rpt.pdf
145
-------
oxidative stress, neuroendocrine disruption, for characterizing the effects of chemicals (such as
particulate matter, metals, pesticides, and chemical contaminants in drinking water) on human
health.
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. For example, in 2007, EPA's Human
Health research program discovered a biomarker that can predict the severity of an asthmatic
response in susceptible people, resulting in new protocols for improving indoor air quality and
providing the scientific basis for public education policies and risk management strategies
involving exposure to molds.
Other human health research will continue to focus on exposures to environmental contaminants
and subsequent effects during critical life-stages, 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. Human health research focused on physiological and biochemical changes during
critical life-stages will be used as a basis for understanding susceptibility and the role of
environmental stressors in the exacerbation or pathogenesis of disease.
EPA also will continue to support and collaborate with the EPA-sponsored Centers for
Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research (FY 2009 Request, $6
million), which study whether and how environmental factors play a role in children's health.
This continued interaction is supported by the BOSC, which encourages synergistic research
progress. 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 environmental exposures at multiple stages of development
to evaluate relationships between these exposures and observed health effects.
In FY 2009, research on public health outcomes will continue to assess the cumulative impact of
a suite of air pollution reduction programs on environmental public health indicators for children
and older populations. Research to determine the effectiveness of regulatory decisions on human
health following exposure to waterborne pathogens will continue. EPA also will move toward
integrating valid and predictive bioindicators of exposure, susceptibility and effects to develop
approaches to assess public health impacts of regulatory decisions, including developing
environmental health outcome indicators through the Agency's Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) program.
146
-------
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the program as "adequate" in a 2005
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review, which was conducted under the program title
"Human Health Research."69 This rating was attributed to findings that the program had a
focused design, meaningful performance measures, and that the program's research results were
being used to reduce uncertainty in risk assessment. In response to OMB recommendations after
the 2005 PART, the program has implemented all follow-up recommendations resulting from its
2005 BOSC review; has established preliminary targets for its long-term measures based on
BOSC mid-cycle review feedback; and has worked to improve its budget and performance
integration.
Ecological Research
In FY 2009, the total level of funding requested for Ecosystems research is $70 million. The
Ecological Research Program (ERP) is a multi-media program consistent with the integrated
perspectives of the Agency's Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal (FY 2009 Request, $66
million). The program's ultimate goal is that decision-makers routinely apply information and
methods developed by this program to make proactive policy and management decisions that
ensure human well-being by conserving and enhancing ecosystem services over time and at
multiple scales. Four areas will comprise the research program: (1) defining ecosystem services
and their implications for human well-being and valuation; (2) measuring, monitoring, and
mapping ecosystem services at multiple scales over time; (3) developing predictive models for
quantifying and forecasting the changes in ecosystem services under alternative management
scenarios; and (4) developing and adapting a decision support platform for decision makers to
use to protect and restore ecosystem services through informed decision making at multiple
spatial and temporal scales. These research areas will be carried out through three different types
of studies: (a) the study of the impact of a nationally important pollutant (reactive nitrogen—for
example, in support of the new NOx/SOx NAAQS) on ecosystem services; (b) the study of
ecosystem services in important ecosystems (wetlands and coral reefs) for which the Agency has
responsibilities; and (c) the study of real places facing the trade-off among ecosystems while
conserving services provided.
In FY 2009, the emphasis on the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
will continue to decrease as the methods for national aquatic surveys are transferred to states and
tribes with EPA oversight. Continuing technical support for implementing the surveys will
transfer to the Water Quality Research program in Goal 2. These transfers are natural
progressions, from core research to applications in other program research and use by the
Program Offices. However, a continuing challenge is upgrading of EMAP to using real-time,
sensor based technology for the most critical chemical and biological measurements.
The EMAP design significantly reduces the cost of monitoring for large scale studies by taking a
random sample of sites at a carefully chosen point in time. The ecological research program will
begin examining monitoring design and implementation options focused on field sensors that
would be used to decrease the need for field visits through the placement of field proven remote
sensors. By doing so, not only will the cost of field sampling be reduced, but the frequency of
measurements for selected sites can be greatly increased at no additional cost. These more
69 For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004373.2005.html
147
-------
frequent measures would be helpful in better understanding the response of ecosystems to
seasonal and annual changes, particularly to improve model predictions of change. The
combination of the more efficient EMAP site selection process and the remotely sensed real-
time data would make EMAP a more cost effective ecological monitoring system.
The new emphasis of the ERP will be to advance a more comprehensive theory and practice for
quantifying ecosystems services, their values, and their relationships to human well being. The
goal is consistent incorporation into environmental decision making at local, regional and
national scales.
Over the next few years, this focus will become the primary direction of the ecological research
program. Ecosystem services, e.g., the ability of vegetation to retain water and nutrients, to
provide habitat for animals, to decrease run-off to streams, rivers and lakes, to sequester carbon,
and to provide food and shelter are often considered free and infinite. However, misuse of these
services leads to degradation or destruction and they are costly to replace when gone. A well-
known current example is the decrease in honey bee populations and thus their free service
provided to farmers nationally for pollination of crops have to be replaced by some means- at
additional costs ultimately passed on to the consumer. The same can be said for the high costs of
replacing the natural water retention provided by healthy ecosystems that has to be replaced by
costly storm sewers that are currently overloaded in many communities. Another example is the
elimination of wetlands that protect coastal areas from storm surge.
The ERP research is supporting the EPA Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan and
Executive Order 12866 which deal with assessing costs and benefits of alternative strategies for
environmental protection. The research is expected to be the first integrated program to address
the difficult topic of maintaining, enhancing, and restoring the services provided by the natural
environment. As a result, the ERP will provide the scientific basis for including more
comprehensive valuations of ecosystem services than currently possible into management
strategies by clarifying the economic, social and ecological ramifications of various management
options. The work is broadly applicable across the Agency as the regulatory programs prepare
cost and benefit analyses of their decisions on alternative regulatory strategies. Because the
program must incorporate social and economic sciences, opportunities to collaborate with non-
traditional partners within and outside of EPA will facilitate a unique, more cross-disciplinary,
more broadly applicable research program. In collaboration with Agency partners within the
Water program, the Air and Radiation program, the Policy, Economics, and Innovation program,
and EPA Regions and offices, the Ecological Research program has identified four immediate
uses for information on ecosystem services:
• Provide technical support for agency policies, including voluntary measures such as
environmental stewardship;
• Provide improved techniques for estimating the benefits and costs related to national
rule-making;
• Develop metrics on ecosystem services (e.g., for use in the Report on the
Environment or for creating environmental Gross Domestic Product accounts); and
• Create credible scientific foundations for market incentives (e.g., for ecosystem
services trading or for investments in conservation).
148
-------
Every day, local town, county, and state managers make decisions to support economic growth.
The information provided by the program will enable the manager/community to better decide
where, for example, development should best occur to maintain or improve storm water flow,
increase recreational opportunities by the location of functional wetlands, protect local water
resources, and at the same time, decrease the cost to the community for these services they will
want or require. The desired outcome of the research is for decision makers to be able to better
understand the ways in which their choices affect the type, quality and magnitude of the services
we receive from ecosystems such as clean air and water, productive soils and food, when local,
regional, or national decisions need to be made.
Diagnostics and forecasting research in the current program will be shifting to development and
understanding of models describing (quantifying changes) and forecasting the response of
ecosystem services to human actions and natural stressors at multiple scales over time. It is the
decision support tools for policy makers and managers that will ultimately facilitate the
protection and restoration of ecosystems. These tools (e.g., models, maps, animations, and other
data rich displays) will be created for explicit and proactive examination of a range of
management options at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Environmental managers will use
these tools to identify and prioritize the most effective approaches and methods for conserving,
enhancing or restoring important ecosystem services, so that their actions are as cost-effective as
can be achieved. Field-based research will be conducted on approaches and methods to conserve,
enhance or restore important ecosystem services, in particular, water and nutrient regulation, soil
retention, biomass production, and water supplies in riparian zones and wetlands.
The Program will provide guidance and tools for balancing the protection and use of ecological
resources. Tools and models will, therefore, be created in a context relevant to economic, socio-
cultural, and human health needs. The collection of activities and products will transform the
way we understand and respond to environmental change by shaping future policy and
management decisions, based on a much improved understanding of the ecosystem services we
often take for granted.
The Ecological Research program received a "moderately effective" rating in its most recent
OMB PART review in 2007. While the program received a "results not demonstrated" rating in
2003, and an "ineffective" rating in 2005, the program has made extensive progress and
continues to improve by: 1) developing and publishing a revised multi-year research plan that
clearly demonstrates how the program's research supports the EPA mission, avoids duplication
with other research programs, and ensures the strategic vision of the program is current and
outcome-oriented; 2) increasing budget, program and performance information transparency in
budget documents; and 3) educating the Agency on program utility and performance in
relationship to environmental outcomes to enhance independent science reviews.
Exploratory Grants and Nanotechnology Research
EPA is increasingly focused on nanotechnology's implications for environmental health and
safety. The Agency's efforts are coordinated with other Federal agencies through the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)70. EPA's nanotechnology research (FY 2009 Request, $14.9
70 For more information, see http://www.nano.gov/.
149
-------
million, including $2.7 million in the Land research program, $11.8 million in the Human Health
and Ecosystem research program, and $0.2 million in both the Air and Sustainability research
programs) also is guided by a nanotechnology white paper71 prepared by the Agency and an
environmental, health, and safety research needs document72 prepared by the Nanotechnology
Environmental and Health Implications Working Group of the National Science and Technology
Council's Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology.
In FY 2009, 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.73 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, remediate, or prevent traditional
pollutants. Nanotechnology research also is supported in the Research: Land Protection and
Restoration program and, to a lesser extent, other programs.
Report on the Environment and Advanced Monitoring Initiative
The Report on the Environment (ROE) plays a critical role in EPA's strategic planning activities
as the Agency develops and implements more transparent and outcome-oriented measures and
indicators. In FY 2009, EPA will continue mission-based research that will help support this
triennial report.
FY 2009 research in the Advanced Monitoring Initiative (AMI) will link various EPA
offices/regions and other research programs to improve Agency decision-making and analyze
program performance of FY 2006-2008 AMI investments (FY 2009 Request, $5 million). The
initiative also will continue to connect 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
continue 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
71 Environmental Protection Agency, Nanotechnology White Paper (Washington: EPA, 2006). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osa/nanotech.htm.
72 National Science and Technology Council, Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered
Nanoscale Materials (Washington: NSTC, 2006). Available at: http://www.nano.govMNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf
73 For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/.
150
-------
Technology Policy (OSTP) Memorandum on Research and Development Budget Priorities has
encouraged agency efforts to align with USGEO and GEOSS.
Mercury Research
EPA has developed a multi-year plan for studying mercury (FY 2009 Request, $4 million),
including its sources, control and treatment, environmental fate and behavior, impacts on
ecological resources, and potential effects on human health.75 In FY2009, the program will
continue to support the Agency's recent Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR),76 including research
to determine whether mercury "hot spots" exist. EPA also will 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 emissions
monitors to determine the amount and characteristics of mercury emitted by sources such as
coal-fired utilities. The program also will develop and evaluate emissions control technologies,
with an emphasis on technologies that can simultaneously control mercury and other air
pollutants, and investigate whether mercury removed from coal-fired power plant emissions
remains stably trapped in combustion and scrubber residues.
Performance Targets:
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 2007
Actual
254
FY 2007
Target
307
FY 2008
Target
292
FY 2009
Target
277
Units
Average
Days
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of State, tribe,
and relevant EPA
office needs for
environmental
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
OMB/OSTP FY 2008 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities Memorandum for the Heads
of Executive Departments and Agencies, June 2006.
75 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Mercury Research Multi-Year Plan (Washington: EPA, 2003). See
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/mercurv.pdf.
76 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/.
151
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
forecasting tools and
methods to forecast the
ecological impacts of
various actions.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
Ecological Research
publications rated as
highly-cited
publications.
FY 2007
Actual
21.10
FY 2007
Target
20.4
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Target
21.4
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
Ecological research
publications in "high-
impact" journals.
FY 2007
Actual
20.80
FY 2007
Target
20.3
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Target
21.3
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of State, tribe,
and EPA office needs
for environmental
restoration and services
tools and methods to
protect and restore
ecological condition
and services.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of State, tribe,
and relevant EPA
office needs for causal
diagnosis tools and
methods to determine
causes of ecological
degradation.
FY 2007
Actual
67
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
152
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of public
health outcomes long-
term goal.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
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.
FY 2007
Actual
This is a
long-term
no data
was
rollprt in
V'Ullt'V'l 111
FY 9007
A A j!*\J\J 1
FY 2007
Target
This is a
long-term
measure,
no targets
forFY
2007
FY 2008
Target
This is a
long-term
measure,
no targets
forFY
2008
FY 2009
Target
5.5
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of mechanistic
data long-term goal.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
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.
FY 2007
Actual
This is a
long-term
measure,
no data
•\T7QQ
WdS
rollprt in
WUll^'V'L 111
FY2007
FY 2007
Target
This is a
long-term
measure,
no targets
forFY
2007
FY 2008
Target
This is a
long-term
measure,
no targets
forFY
2008
FY 2009
Target
16.5
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of peer-
reviewed EPA RAs
where ORD methods,
FY 2007
Actual
This is a
long-term
measure,
FY 2007
Target
This is a
long-term
measure,
FY 2008
Target
This is a
long-term
measure,
FY 2009
Target
3.5
Units
Percent
153
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
models or data for
assessing risk to
susceptible
subpopulations is cited
as supporting a
decision to move away
from or apply default
risk assessment
assumptions
FY 2007
Actual
no data
was
collect in
FY2007
FY 2007
Target
no targets
forFY
2007
FY 2008
Target
no targets
forFY
2008
FY 2009
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of aggregate
and cumulative risk
long-term goal.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the
susceptible
subpopulations long-
term goal.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percent variance from
planned cost and
schedule.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Lag
FY 2007
Target
-11.6
FY 2008
Target
-9.6
FY 2009
Target
-7.6
Units
Percent
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4. Specifically,
the program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions with a focus on human,
community, and ecosystem health.
The programs gauge their annual and long-term success by assessing progress on several key
measures. In 2009, the Human Health research program plans to accomplish its goals of
completing and delivering 100% of its planned outputs. The program is also targeting increases
in the percentage of its peer reviewed risk assessments in which ORD's research is cited as
supporting a decision to move away from or to apply default risk assessment assumptions, as was
encouraged in the 2005 BOSC review. Additionally, the program plans to meet its efficiency
goal of reducing the average time for processing research grants to 277 days.
154
-------
As evidence of the utility of its research, the Ecological research program strives, by 2009, to
have forty 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. The
program also aims to make further improvements in its bibliometric analysis results, and is
targeting a "highly cited" publication rate of 21.4%, and a "high impact" publication rate of
21.3%. Improvements in the percentage of program publications deemed "highly cited" and
"high impact" demonstrates increased quality and utility of the program's research. The program
also plans to meet 100% of its planned outputs in support of each long-term goal while
increasing efficiency. As a measure of efficiency, the program plans to continue working to
decrease its percent variance from planned cost and schedule, a measure that the National
Academy of Sciences is currently reviewing as part of a study to determine the best approach for
measuring the efficiency of research. In achieving these targets, the programs will enable EPA
to meet its goal of providing scientifically sound guidance and policy decisions related to human
health and ecosystems.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3,600.0 / +4.0 FTE) This reflects an increase in resources to advance the timetable to
achieve goals identified in the EPA Nanomaterial Research Strategy: supporting health
and ecological implications arising from new routes of exposure and/or toxicities
associated with exposure to these novel materials; identifying and developing risk
assessment methodologies for use by agency risk assessors; and evaluating the adequacy
of current exposure assessment approaches. The change in workyears reflects EPA's
workforce management strategy that will help the Agency better align resources, skills
and Agency priorities. It is an internal redirection of workyears from human health
research to support the nanotechnology research effort.
• (+$1,000.0) This increase will support research to advance environmental monitoring
and assessment. This work will take advantage of the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) program to develop sensor-based technologies for real-time monitoring
of critical chemical and biological parameters.
• (+$3,085.0 / -0.9 FTE) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all
program projects in addition to technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or
other support costs across programs.
• (-$6,000.0) This reduction is the result of a Congressionally directed increase included in
the FY 2008 Omnibus for basic human health research, including STAR grants and
exposure research.
• (-$4,000.0) This reflects a Congressionally directed increase included in the FY 2008
Omnibus appropriation for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP). This increase funds monitoring efforts on U.S. aquatic resources.
• (-$3,397.0) This reduces funding for lower-priority human health research, including
planned observational studies for asthma exposure data, and STAR grants on susceptible
155
-------
populations not related to the Children's Centers. All high priority human health research
will continue.
• (-$1,401.0 / -21.8 FTE) This reflects realignment of programmatic and support
workyears between the human health and ecosystems, land protection and restoration,
drinking water, and computational toxicology research programs and recalculation of
their associated support costs to more closely align with programmatic priorities. The
change in workyears reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
• (-$1,153.0) This reduction discontinues the grant portion of the Greater Research
Opportunities (GRO) program. Half of these resources for GRO grants will be redirected
to support GRO fellowships in the Fellowships Program. The Agency will continue to
manage GRO grants awarded prior to FY 2009. This realignment will allow the GRO
program to better meet the Agency's goals.
• (-$24.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; SOW A; ERDDA; CWA; FIFRA; FFDCA; RCRA; FQPA; TSCA; USGCRA.
156
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
157
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$10,907.3
$657.0
$841.3
$23,859.1
$36,264.7
134.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,737.0
$660.0
$901.0
$20,081.0
$32,379.0
141.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,591.0
$650.0
$887.0
$19,768.0
$31,896.0
141.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$13,350.0
$413.0
$704.0
$21,021.0
$35,488.0
154.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,759.0
($237.0)
($183.0)
$1,253.0
$3,592.0
13.4
Program Project Description:
Research performed under the Land Research program supports scientifically defensible and
consistent decision-making for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) material
management, corrective action, and emerging materials. Research under this program has been
evolving from waste disposal to beneficial re-use, avoidance of more toxic materials, and
operation of waste management to conserve capacity and produce energy. To address emerging
material management issues a strategic shift in the research program was made to focus on
nanomaterial fate and transport. Research within this program addresses resource conservation
and material reuse issues, the application of models and tools to support the Brownfield program,
application of alternative landfill covers and the benefits of landfill bioreactors.
Research efforts are guided by the Land Research Program Multi-Year Plan (MYP)77, 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 externally 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, and "the research conducted...is making its way to end users."78 The BOSC
recommended increased focus on emerging issues and the strategic priority of nanomaterial
EPA, Office of Research and Development, Land Research Program. Washington, D.C.: EPA. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htrirfland
78 BOSC Land Restoration and Preservation Research Subcommittee Report. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/OSP/bosc/pdf/land0603rpt.pdf
158
-------
environmental and human health issues. Additional suggestions from both the SAB review and
the BOSC review also are being incorporated into the research program.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to collaborate with the private sector to conduct field sampling of
contaminated sites. 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. The BOSC
evaluation found that this research, which directly contributes to the Land Restoration long-term
goal, "will help states and facility owners pursue R & D permitting of these forward-thinking
land disposal options." 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 decreasing landfill disposal and incineration by 11 million tons. The Agency
works with the Association of State and Tribal Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO)
to assist in the communication of research results on landfill bioreactors to the states.
Revitalization of previously used land (e.g., Brownfields) does not always occur due to obstacles
related to real and/or perceived contamination. EPA will continue to develop a site specific
management approach for brownfields and develop validated acceptable practices for land
revitalization. This includes development of GIS and Remote Sensing tools to inventory
Brownfield sites as well as publishing the updated SMARTe 2009 edition decision support tool.
In response to BOSC recommendations, EPA has shifted work under this program to address
nanotechnology research (FY 2009 Request, $14.9 million, including $2.7 million in the Land
research program and $11.8 million in the Human Health and Ecosystem research program),
including fate and transport research issues. The primary objective, for nanotechnology fate and
transport research, 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 will also be addressed as part of the broader EPA research efforts into
nanotechnology.
The Agency's efforts are coordinated with other Federal agencies through the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI),79 which the Administration has identified as a FY2009
research and development budget priority.80 EPA's nanotechnology research also is guided by
the EPA white paper81 and EPA's Research and Development programs Nanotechnology
Research Strategy.
79 For more information, see http://www.nano.gov/.
80 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.
81 Environmental Protection Agency, Nanotechnology White Paper (Washington: EPA, 2006). Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osa/nanotech.htm.
159
-------
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the program as "adequate" in its 2006
(PART) review, which was conducted under the program title "Land Protection and Restoration
Research."82 This "adequate" rating was supported by findings that the program had long-term
and annual output performance measures in place that reflected the purpose of the program, as
well as a strong strategic and evaluation approach. In response to OMB recommendations
following the 2006 PART, the program has established a process by which the BOSC will assign
a performance rating to each program long-term goal as part of its reviews. These ratings will
provide the data for new program long-term outcome measures that will be instated. Using the
progress rating expected from the 2008 BOSC review, the program will be able to set appropriate
future year targets. Additionally, to address OMB's recommendation that the program establish
an outcome-oriented efficiency measure, EPA has initiated a National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) study to determine the most appropriate approach. Further, to improve its collection of
partner performance information, EPA's Research and Development program is updating its
Policy and Procedures Manual on Extramural Resources Management to require that all research
and development grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements be linked to one or more Multi-
Year Plan Long-Term Goals (LTGs).
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and Research.
Specifically, the program provides and applies sound science for protecting and restoring land by
conducting leading-edge research, which, through collaboration, leads to preferred
environmental outcomes. Performance measures for this specific program project are included
under the Superfund Land Protection and Restoration program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,192.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$400.0) This reflects an increase in resources to advance the timetable to achieve goals
identified in the ORE) Nanomaterial Research Strategy. The primary objective of
research conducted is to determine the release points of engineered nanomaterials into the
environment and the physico-chemical properties controlling the transport and
transformation of nanomaterials in environmental media. This will provide the basis for
prioritizing potential human health and ecological exposure pathways that warrant further
investigation.
• (+$817.0 / +9.4 FTE) This reflects a redirection of work years and resources from the
Water Quality and Human Health research programs to support nanotechnology research,
provide research support for the scientific workforce within the land program and a
realignment of support workyears to reflect programmatic priorities.
82 For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html
160
-------
• (+$350.0 / -1.0 FTE) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all
program projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel
or other support costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; ERDDA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
161
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
162
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$24,864.5
$212.3
$25,076.8
81.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$22,478.0
$0.0
$22,478.0
76.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$22,127.0
$0.0
$22,127.0
76.2
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$19,970.0
$0.0
$19,970.0
70.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($2,157.0)
$0.0
($2,157.0)
-5.4
Program Project Description:
EPA's Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS) program is designed to advance
Sustainability goals. Sustainable and preventive approaches to health and environmental
problems have increasingly become the Agency's focus since the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990. As defined in the Brundtland Report83, Sustainability is development which meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.
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 for the long-term.
The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Environmental Engineering Committee reviewed EPA's
Sustainability Research Strategy84 and the Science and Technology for Sustainability Multi-Year
Plan in June 2006. The SAB stated that it "strongly endorses the Agency's proposal to establish
a research program focused on Sustainability because the results from such a program will
improve the scientific foundation for a sustainable environment."85 The STS research program
contains several new elements, such as the development of metrics and systems-based
environmental management practices, as a result of this review. Ongoing efforts 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 3) the People,
Prosperity, and the Planet (P3) Student Design Competition for Sustainability. In addition, the
STS research program was reviewed by EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) in FY
83 For more information see, http://habitat.igc.org/open-gates/wced-ocf.htm
84 For more information see, http://www.epa.gov/sustainabilitv/pdfs/EPA-12057 SRS R4-l.pdf
85 For more information see,
http://vosemite.epa.gov/sab%5Csabproduct.nsf/D24960CAEE6ECCAB852572FE00704ECO/$File/sab-07-007.pdf
163
-------
2007 (April 2007). The BOSC will soon release a report on the program's quality and
performance.
The STS Research Program is designed to ultimately position EPA's Research and Development
program to provide technical support to regional and national sustainability policies and
initiatives. Toward this end the STS Research Program has established the following areas of
emphasis:
• Sustainability Metrics: As sustainable solutions to environmental problems are
developed and implemented, there is a need to measure the progress and impact of these
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 for use in a variety of applications,
including technology evaluation, regional ecosystem and watershed management and
more general measurements that are suitable for use in the Agency's Report on the
Environment.
• Decision Support Tools:*6 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. This work encompasses
both core research (in furthering methods and techniques) and applied research (with
tools for specific clients, i.e. TRACT, the Tool for Reduction and Assessment of
Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts).
• Technologies: This research emphasizes the role that technologies have in creating
sustainable outcomes. Through programs such as the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) program and the People, Prosperity, and Planet (P3) student design
competition, emphasis will be placed on finding solutions to client-driven problems while
promoting sustainable design and implementation practices.
o Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program:*1 As required by the Small
Business Act as amended,88 EPA sets aside 2.5% of its extramural research
budget for contracts to small businesses to develop and commercialize new
environmental technologies.
o People, Prosperity, and the Planet (P3):*9 P3 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
86 For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/ord/NRMRL/std/sab.
87 For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/sbir.
88
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 : .
89 For more information, see http://es.epa. gov/ncer/p3 .
164
-------
can use to monitor energy and water consumption at various scales, from
individual dormitory floors to their entire college campus.
Over the long term, the STS Program will promote and support national and regional
sustainability policies and initiatives by ensuring that decision-makers within the EPA and at the
local, regional and national levels have a scientifically sound set of management tools that
promote stewardship and sustainability outcomes.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS) research program will continue
its focus on sustainability metrics and decision support tools. Some specifics are outlined below.
In the area of sustainability metrics, research in FY 2009 will focus on both technology and
systems metrics. An applied technology metrics problem will be initiated to validate in-house
research efforts. EPA will continue a project to develop scientifically-based sustainability
metrics for use in evaluating innovative technologies. Systems metrics represents the
measurement of energetic resources, human health, ecological burden (i.e., water, biota, air), and
overall system function and health in a broader regional scale. The San Luis Valley Project will
be working on the development and application of a set of five sustainability metrics (ecological
and economic) to be used by environmental managers in their efforts to support sustainable
outcomes in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. Also, building upon the in-house research effort,
the program is beginning research on sustainability metrics for use in future Reports on the
Environment.
Planned research in decision support tools includes efforts to further develop a streamlined in-
house Life Cycle Assessment methodology and incorporate material flow concepts into these
tools. The program will complete an environmental impact assessment model for land use and
continue work on a water use model. A collaborative research project applying sustainability
metrics to management of regional ecosystems will be established and work will continue on
extending an auction-based management approach to urban wet weather flow.
The EPA also will continue to fund the development of new innovative technologies through the
P3 program and to advance the development of international environmental technology testing
protocols and a global environmental technology network. The Agency will continue to develop
a report to document the impact of technology verifications on achieving sustainable outcomes.
In 2003, EPA's sustainability research program, under the program title Research: 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 the Science and Technology for Sustainability Multi-
Year Plan as well as annual and long term performance and efficiency measures that will be
finalized in consultation with OMB.
165
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Strategic Plan Objective 5.4: Enhance Science and
Research. Currently, there are no PART performance measures for this specific program project.
However, the program monitors performance including the timely completion of research
milestones and the citation rates of research publications. The program expects to formalize
these and other performance measures during Spring 2008. Additionally, the program began
implementing a new efficiency measure in 2007 to track the "Percent variance from planned cost
and schedule." In response to a PART follow-up action and the recently issued report by The
National Academies on "Evaluating Research Efficiency in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency," EPA plans to review this measure and consult with OMB about how best to measure
efficiency going forward.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,600.0 / -3.1 FTE) This reflects a reduction to resources for the sustainability
program, including the Small Business Innovation Research program. Although work
will continue, the reduction will delay the development of metrics to assess new
technologies. However, highest priority work, such as the development of easily
accessible and understandable sustainability metrics, the sustainability of alternative
policy options based on Life Cycle Analysis, and new technologies developed through
P3, will continue without delay.
• (+$464.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$471.0) This reduction reflects efficiencies associated with resources that provide
organization-wide support, for example, funding for operating expenses, capital
equipment, repairs and improvements, and the use of contract resources, and efficiencies
associated with IT and telecommunications support resources, including high-
performance computing.
• (-$125.0) This reflects a consolidation of the Agency's program evaluation efforts.
• (-2.3 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. This is part of a technical
realignment of FTE across all programs to reflect programmatic priorities. There are no
programmatic or performance impacts.
• (-$425.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; CWA; FIFRA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SBA; SARA; TSCA; ERDDA.
166
-------
Program Area: Toxic Research and Prevention
167
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$29,425.2
$29,425.2
125.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$24,795.0
$24,795.0
126.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$24,459.0
$24,459.0
126.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$26,568.0
$26,568.0
137.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,109.0
$2,109.0
11.1
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 models 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.
Research is guided by the Biotechnology Research Strategy90 and the Wildlife Research
Strategy,91 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)92 that outlines steps for meeting these needs, as well as
annual performance goals and measures for evaluating progress.
The program's long-term performance measures rate the utility of its methods, models, and data
for use by EPA's Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances program and other organizations.
The research program's three major goals are: (1) to provide predictive tools to prioritize testing
requirements; enhance interpretation of data to improve human health and ecological risk
assessments; and inform decision-making regarding high priority pesticides and toxic substances;
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.
91 U.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.
92 U.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/sp2.pdf.
168
-------
(2) to develop probabilistic risk assessments to protect natural populations of birds, fish, other
wildlife, and non-target plants; and (3) to provide the tools necessary to make decisions related to
products of biotechnology.
In February 2007, the Pesticides and Toxics research program underwent an external peer review
by EPA's research advisory committee, the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), which
commended the progress and direction of the research and provided recommendations for
improvement.93 The BOSC stated that "SP2 is a very successful program. The research is of
high quality and is focused on well-articulated goals. Its relevance to the Agency's mission is
clear and apparent, and the SP2 Program fills a unique niche within the Agency, and serves the
needs of OPPTS, its major client, very well." The BOSC also noted that, "the scientists involved
in these projects are internationally recognized and their findings and organized panels serve to
establish regulatory guidance around the world."
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, research will continue to provide the scientific foundation for the three major goals
of the Pesticides and Toxics research program.
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:
• predictive biomarkers of neurotoxic effects for major classes of pesticides;
• alternative test methods for the hazard identification of developmental
neurotoxicants;
• virtual chemical screening methods for risk-based prioritization and ranking needs
for chronic non-cancer effects; and
• quantitative structure activity relationships (QSARs) to relate various structural
descriptions of molecules to toxicity endpoints.
Research conducted in FY 2009 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:
• extrapolation among wildlife species and exposure scenarios of concern;
• population biology to improve population dynamics in spatially-explicit habitats;
• models for assessing the relative risk of chemical and non-chemical stressors; and
• models to define geographical regional/spatial scales for risk assessment.
93 U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, SP2 Research Program Review. Washington, D.C. (2007).
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/sp2072307rpt.pdf.
169
-------
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-
level risks to wildlife populations and non-target plants and plant communities from pesticides,
toxic chemicals and multiple stressors while advancing the development of probabilistic risk
assessment. This supports the Agency's obligation under the Endangered Species Act.
Additionally, EPA will provide biotechnology research to support decision-making related to
products of biotechnology, although the scope of the research program will be reduced. Through
its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, methods are being developed to assess the
potential allergenicity of genetically engineered plants.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the program as "moderately effective" in a
2007 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review, which was conducted under the program
title "Pesticides and Toxics Research."94 This rating was attributed to OMB findings that an
independent expert review by the BOSC determined the program was effective and achieving
results, that the program was very well coordinated with the Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances program, and that the program had long-term and annual performance measures in
place. In response to OMB recommendations following the 2007 PART, the program is
currently: 1) developing a formal response to the BOSC report, addressing action items, and
making progress toward long-term and annual targets, 2) assessing the current efficiency
measure to determine how best to capture the cost effectiveness of research activities, and 3)
developing a system to utilize quarterly performance measurement reporting to improve program
performance.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percent variance from
planned cost and
schedule.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
-6
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the SP2
program's long-term
goal one.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
86
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the SP2
FY 2007
Actual
80
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
94
For more information, see http://www.wMtehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10009012.2007.html.
170
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
program's long-term
goal three.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the SP2
program's long-term
goal two.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4. Specifically,
the program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people,
community, and ecosystems, with a focus on pesticides and toxic chemicals.
The program gauges its annual and long-term success in meeting this objective by assessing its
progress on several key measures. In 2009, the program strives to complete 100% of its planned
outputs in support of its three long-term goals. Additionally, to make improvements in
efficiency, the program aims to decrease its variance from planned cost and schedule to -6%, a
measure that the National Academy of Sciences is reviewing as part of its study to determine the
best approach for measuring the efficiency of research. Achieving these targets will enable the
Agency to make well-informed guidance and policy decisions related to pesticides.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$854.0 / +14.3 FTE) This increase is the result of a consolidation of FTE and
associated resources from the Human Health and Ecosystems program to support
research on spatially explicit exposure assessment tools that integrate data. In particular,
wildlife risk assessment will be transferred from the ecosystems research program to the
pesticides and toxics program to align with the primary client regulatory program, the
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances program. This also includes a realignment
of resources that provide organization-wide support, such as operating expenses and
travel.
• (+$845.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$1,410.0 / -0.2 FTE) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all
program projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel
or other support costs across programs. These funds also will be used in support of
pesticides and toxics research.
• (-$1,000.0 / -3.0 FTE) This reduces funding for the Agency's biotechnology research to
understand the impact of genetically modified crops on the environment. This reduction
would minimize the impact to the highest priority work in the pesticides and toxics
171
-------
research program, such as research to support the development of probabilistic risk
assessment methods.
Statutory Authority:
FQPA; FIFRA; TSCA; CWA; CAA; ERDDA.
172
-------
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
173
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$100,323.2
$3,256.6
$103,579.8
564.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$96,967.0
$3,416.0
$100,383.0
584.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$96,722.0
$3,375.0
$100,097.0
584.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$99,476.0
$3,559.0
$103,035.0
583.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,754.0
$184.0
$2,938.0
-0.7
Program Project Description:
This program provides technical support to drinking water programs through the Technical
Support Center (TSC), which evaluates engineering and scientific data (including treatment
technology information) to establish its applicability to the drinking water program's needs;
develops and implements regulations to support national occurrence surveys and assists in the
assessment of the contaminant occurrence data resulting from those surveys; develops and
evaluates monitoring approaches and analytical methods, including assessing data provided by
others to demonstrate the effectiveness of new/alternate analytical methods; trains Regional and
State Certification Officers and develops guidelines for the drinking water laboratory
certification program; works with Regions and states to help drinking water utilities better
understand their treatment and distribution systems and implement improvements to optimize
performance; and provides other technical support to develop and implement National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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.
174
-------
• 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 analyze drinking water samples. Through this program, EPA also will conduct three
Regional program reviews during FY 2009. 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.
• 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 2009, EPA expects that 30 states and 6 Regional
Offices will be working to establish, strengthen, and enhance AWOPs. In addition, EPA
will expand the scope of the program technical content to incorporate distribution system
integrity elements into the performance-based training approach to facilitate the transfer
of key skills specific to groundwater systems and distribution system components. 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 of community
water systems that
meet all applicable
health-based standards
through approaches
that include effective
treatment and source
water protection.
FY 2007
Actual
89
FY 2007
Target
89
FY 2008
Target
89.5
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percent
Systems
175
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of population
served by CWSs that
will receive drinking
water that meets all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards through
approaches incl.
effective treatment &
source water
protection.
FY 2007
Actual
91.5
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
90
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Perrent
-1 ^'Iv'^'llL
Population
The two performance measures displayed above are representative of the work carried out under
this program. These measures were developed in related PARTs: 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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$78.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$106.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
176
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Environmental Programs and Management
Resource Summary Table 177
Program Projects in EPM 177
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality 184
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs 185
Federal Stationary Source Regulations 188
Federal Support for Air Quality Management 191
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program 196
Radiation: Protection 199
Radiation: Response Preparedness 202
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs 205
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund 208
Program Area: Brownfields 211
Brownfields 212
Program Area: Climate Protection Program 214
Climate Protection Program 215
Program Area: Compliance 221
Compliance Assistance and Centers 222
Compliance Incentives 225
Compliance Monitoring 228
Program Area: Enforcement 233
Civil Enforcement 234
Criminal Enforcement 237
Enforcement Training 241
Environmental Justice 243
NEPA Implementation 247
Program Area: Geographic Programs 250
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay 251
Geographic Program: Great Lakes 256
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound 261
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico 264
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain 268
Geographic Program: Other 270
Regional Geographic Initiatives 276
Program Area: Homeland Security 280
Homeland Security: Communication and Information 281
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection 283
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 286
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 288
Program Area: Indoor Air 290
Indoor Air: Radon Program 291
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air 294
-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach 298
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency Coordination 299
Environmental Education 302
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations 304
Exchange Network 308
Small Business Ombudsman 311
Small Minority Business Assistance 314
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness 316
TRI / Right to Know 320
Tribal - Capacity Building 322
Program Area: International Programs 325
US Mexico Border 326
Commission for Environmental Cooperation 328
Environment and Trade 329
International Capacity Building 331
POPs Implementation 333
International Sources of Pollution 335
Trade and Governance 340
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 345
Information Security 346
IT / Data Management 348
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review 352
Administrative Law 353
Alternative Dispute Resolution 355
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance 357
Legal Advice: Environmental Program 360
Legal Advice: Support Program 362
Regional Science and Technology 364
Regulatory Innovation 367
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis 373
Science Advisory Board 376
Program Area: Operations and Administration 378
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 379
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 382
Acquisition Management 384
Financial Assistance Grants /IAG Management 386
Human Resources Management 388
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing 392
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk 393
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk 398
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability 403
Science Policy and Biotechnology 407
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 409
RCRA: Waste Management 410
RCRA: Corrective Action 415
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling 418
-------
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention 425
Endocrine Disrupters 426
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction 429
Pollution Prevention Program 436
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management 442
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program 445
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) 449
LUST/UST 450
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems 453
Great Lakes Legacy Act 454
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways 457
Wetlands 462
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection 466
Beach /Fish Programs 467
Drinking Water Programs 471
Program Area: Water Quality Protection 478
Marine Pollution 479
Surface Water Protection 483
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Environmental Program & Management
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$2,321,877.0
10,652.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,298,188.0
10,867.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,327,962.0
10,849.7
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$2,335,562.0
10,796.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$7,600.0
-53.6
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
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
FY 2007
Actuals
$18,621.2
$22,744.8
$97.9
$95,478.1
$95,576.0
$25,081.8
$10,172.7
$2,809.7
$5,280.0
$11,315.0
$191,601.2
$25,838.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$19,388.0
$26,504.0
$0.0
$90,490.0
$90,490.0
$24,711.0
$10,186.0
$2,928.0
$4,489.0
$9,865.0
$188,561.0
$23,450.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$19,131.0
$26,091.0
$0.0
$89,464.0
$89,464.0
$24,390.0
$10,057.0
$2,882.0
$5,119.0
$9,711.0
$186,845.0
$23,665.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$19,898.0
$26,787.0
$0.0
$95,538.0
$95,538.0
$22,693.0
$10,533.0
$2,941.0
$4,696.0
$9,865.0
$192,951.0
$22,732.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$767.0
$696.0
$0.0
$6,074.0
$6,074.0
($1,697.0)
$476.0
$59.0
($423.0)
$154.0
$6,106.0
($933.0)
177
-------
Program Project
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
Energy STAR
Methane to markets
Asian Pacific Partnership
Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Registry
Climate Protection Program
(other activities)
Subtotal, Climate Protection
Program
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
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: Long Island
Sound
Geographic Program: Gulf of
Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake
Champlain
FY 2007
Actuals
$38,573.4
$2,351.1
$3,203.0
$0.0
$47,124.6
$91,252.1
$91,252.1
$28,226.9
$9,448.8
$90,724.6
$128,400.3
$123,003.7
$39,721.6
$2,668.3
$6,319.2
$13,863.5
$185,576.3
$25,478.3
$20,274.1
$23,522.7
$1,361.4
$4,407.4
$997.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$43,926.0
$4,436.0
$5,000.0
$0.0
$34,565.0
$87,927.0
$87,927.0
$29,547.0
$9,786.0
$93,428.0
$132,761.0
$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
$467.0
$4,457.0
$934.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$48,236.0
$4,369.0
$0.0
$3,445.0
$34,324.0
$90,374.0
$90,374.0
$27,725.0
$10,618.0
$88,726.0
$127,069.0
$129,886.0
$40,742.0
$3,096.0
$6,399.0
$14,142.0
$194,265.0
$13,437.0
$30,528.0
$21,686.0
$4,922.0
$5,618.0
$2,707.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$44,221.0
$4,546.6
$5,000.0
$0.0
$33,240.4
$87,008.0
$87,008.0
$26,435.0
$10,263.0
$96,025.0
$132,723.0
$133,017.0
$44,384.0
$3,043.0
$3,811.0
$16,295.0
$200,550.0
$0.0
$29,001.0
$22,261.0
$467.0
$4,578.0
$934.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($4,015.0)
$177.6
$5,000.0
($3,445.0)
($1,083.6)
($3,366.0)
($3,366.0)
($1,290.0)
($355.0)
$7,299.0
$5,654.0
$3,131.0
$3,642.0
($53.0)
($2,588.0)
$2,153.0
$6,285.0
($13,437.0)
($1,527.0)
$575.0
($4,455.0)
($1,040.0)
($1,773.0)
178
-------
Program Project
Geographic Program: Other
San Francisco Bay
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
FY 2007
Actuals
$0.0
$1,162.3
$969.4
$2,515.0
$5,057.5
$9,704.2
$6,302.5
$66,569.3
$888.7
$7,230.3
$8,119.0
$52.8
$9,502.7
$9,555.5
$0.0
$3,396.8
$3,396.8
$6,219.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$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
FY 2008
Enacted
$4,922.0
$19,688.0
$963.0
$3,394.0
$3,105.0
$32,072.0
$0.0
$97,533.0
$492.0
$6,330.0
$6,822.0
$97.0
$7,568.0
$7,665.0
$3,329.0
$0.0
$3,329.0
$6,248.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$0.0
$1,000.0
$978.0
$2,448.0
$3,289.0
$7,715.0
$4,844.0
$69,800.0
$0.0
$6,940.0
$6,940.0
$99.0
$6,660.0
$6,759.0
$3,412.0
$0.0
$3,412.0
$6,415.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($4,922.0)
($18,688.0)
$15.0
($946.0)
$184.0
($24,357.0)
$4,844.0
($27,733.0)
($492.0)
$610.0
$118.0
$2.0
($908.0)
($906.0)
$83.0
$0.0
$83.0
$167.0
179
-------
Program Project
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
Environmental Education
Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations
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
US Mexico Border
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
Environment and Trade
International Capacity Building
POPs Implementation
International Sources of Pollution
Mexico Border
International Sources of
Pollution (other activities)
Subtotal, International Sources of
Pollution
Trade and Governance
Subtotal, International Programs
IT / Data Management / Security
FY 2007
Actuals
$27,290.4
$5,201.2
$21,425.6
$26,626.8
$4,968.5
$7,807.2
$49,193.3
$17,541.7
$3,761.9
$2,437.3
$12,867.6
$14,605.5
$10,861.3
$124,044.3
$5,790.7
$4,208.8
$1,817.4
$7,210.8
$1,682.4
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$20,710.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$24,419.0
$5,429.0
$21,440.0
$26,869.0
$6,203.0
$0.0
$49,747.0
$15,364.0
$3,261.0
$2,466.0
$12,960.0
$15,728.0
$11,477.0
$117,206.0
$4,646.0
$4,022.0
$1,945.0
$5,311.0
$1,831.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$17,755.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$24,064.0
$5,363.0
$21,632.0
$26,995.0
$6,144.0
$8,860.0
$48,971.0
$15,137.0
$3,210.0
$2,428.0
$12,784.0
$15,504.0
$11,328.0
$124,366.0
$5,439.0
$3,962.0
$1,920.0
$5,228.0
$1,808.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$18,357.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$23,526.0
$5,488.0
$19,180.0
$24,668.0
$6,309.0
$0.0
$49,756.0
$18,058.0
$3,217.0
$2,411.0
$13,298.0
$15,109.0
$11,710.0
$119,868.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$4,902.0
$7,506.0
$12,408.0
$6,216.0
$18,624.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($538.0)
$125.0
($2,452.0)
($2,327.0)
$165.0
($8,860.0)
$785.0
$2,921.0
$7.0
($17.0)
$514.0
($395.0)
$382.0
($4,498.0)
($5,439.0)
($3,962.0)
($1,920.0)
($5,228.0)
($1,808.0)
$4,902.0
$7,506.0
$12,408.0
$6,216.0
$267.0
180
-------
Program Project
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
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations (other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure
and Operations
Central Planning, Budgeting, and
Finance
Acquisition Management
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
Human Resources Management
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health
from Pesticide Risk
FY 2007
Actuals
$4,291.9
$99,196.3
$103,488.2
$4,891.0
$970.5
$10,796.0
$38,242.4
$12,435.8
$3,399.8
$22,498.4
$17,755.0
$4,983.3
$115,972.2
$176,479.1
$14,682.7
$28,897.4
$107,894.9
$327,954.1
$64,431.2
$23,654.1
$20,564.5
$39,740.2
$476,344.1
$0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$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
$165,817.0
$8,210.0
$25,344.0
$104,357.0
$303,728.0
$74,960.0
$29,992.0
$23,439.0
$40,175.0
$472,294.0
$62,514.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,504.0
$90,753.0
$96,257.0
$5,178.0
$1,160.0
$11,065.0
$39,480.0
$14,117.0
$3,518.0
$21,327.0
$16,381.0
$4,727.0
$116,953.0
$161,261.0
$8,082.0
$24,949.0
$102,897.0
$297,189.0
$73,949.0
$28,629.0
$23,242.0
$39,760.0
$462,769.0
$61,819.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$5,790.0
$94,360.0
$100,150.0
$4,949.0
$1,264.0
$11,097.0
$39,925.0
$14,442.0
$3,318.0
$24,405.0
$20,588.0
$5,083.0
$125,071.0
$164,866.0
$11,333.0
$25,676.0
$109,193.0
$311,068.0
$80,623.0
$31,195.0
$25,977.0
$43,646.0
$492,509.0
$60,606.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$286.0
$3,607.0
$3,893.0
($229.0)
$104.0
$32.0
$445.0
$325.0
($200.0)
$3,078.0
$4,207.0
$356.0
$8,118.0
$3,605.0
$3,251.0
$727.0
$6,296.0
$13,879.0
$6,674.0
$2,566.0
$2,735.0
$3,886.0
$29,740.0
($1,213.0)
181
-------
Program Project
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: Waste Management
eManifest
RCRA: Waste
Management (other
activities)
Subtotal, RCRA: Waste
Management
RCRA: Corrective Action
RCRA: Waste Minimization &
Recycling
Subtotal, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Endocrine Disrupters
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Review and Reduction
HPV/VCCEP
Toxic Substances:
Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction (other activities)
Subtotal, Toxic Substances:
Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction
Pollution Prevention Program
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Management
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk
Reduction Program
FY 2007
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
$21,436.3
$42,098.9
$54,442.2
$1,202.9
$119,180.3
$0.0
$65,599.8
$65,599.8
$39,373.3
$12,506.2
$117,479.3
$9,855.8
$12,239.0
$32,462.7
$44,701.7
$17,548.6
$8,249.6
$12,589.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$41,750.0
$12,114.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,780.0
$118,158.0
$4,000.0
$65,158.0
$69,158.0
$39,573.0
$13,666.0
$122,397.0
$5,890.0
$11,015.0
$34,031.0
$45,046.0
$19,935.0
$5,654.0
$13,546.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$41,214.0
$11,959.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,752.0
$116,744.0
$0.0
$66,297.0
$66,297.0
$39,076.0
$13,495.0
$118,868.0
$8,663.0
$12,049.0
$33,623.0
$45,672.0
$16,362.0
$5,585.0
$13,335.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$41,215.0
$12,870.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,675.0
$116,366.0
$2,000.0
$65,111.0
$67,111.0
$39,018.0
$14,397.0
$120,526.0
$5,847.0
$11,381.0
$35,096.0
$46,477.0
$18,398.0
$6,027.0
$13,652.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$1.0
$911.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
($77.0)
($378.0)
$2,000.0
($1,186.0)
$814.0
($58.0)
$902.0
$1,658.0
($2,816.0)
($668.0)
$1,473.0
$805.0
$2,036.0
$442.0
$317.0
182
-------
Program Project
Subtotal, Toxics Risk Review and
Prevention
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST /
UST)
LUST/UST
Water: Ecosystems
Great Lakes Legacy Act
National Estuary Program / Coastal
Waterways
Wetlands
Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems
Water: Human Health Protection
Beach / Fish Programs
Drinking Water Programs
Subtotal, Water: Human Health
Protection
Water Quality Protection
Marine Pollution
Surface Water Protection
Subtotal, Surface Water Protection
Subtotal, Water Quality Protection
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2007
Actuals
$92,945.5
$9,836.7
$24,296.7
$21,474.8
$19,641.9
$65,413.4
$2,821.4
$100,323.2
$103,144.6
$12,890.5
$191,797.2
$191,797.2
$204,687.7
$2,321,879.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$90,071.0
$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
$196,092.0
$196,092.0
$208,943.0
$2,298,188.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$89,617.0
$11,572.0
$34,454.0
$26,779.0
$21,248.0
$82,481.0
$2,789.0
$96,722.0
$99,511.0
$12,674.0
$193,546.0
$193,546.0
$206,220.0
$2,327,962.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$90,401.0
$12,256.0
$35,000.0
$17,239.0
$22,223.0
$74,462.0
$2,795.0
$99,476.0
$102,271.0
$13,185.0
$198,706.0
$198,706.0
$211,891.0
$2,338,353.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$784.0
$684.0
$546.0
($9,540.0)
$975.0
($8,019.0)
$6.0
$2,754.0
$2,760.0
$511.0
$5,160.0
$5,160.0
$5,671.0
$10,391.0
183
-------
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality
184
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$18,621.2
$8,661.1
$27,282.3
86.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$19,388.0
$8,259.0
$27,647.0
89.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$19,131.0
$9,115.0
$28,246.0
89.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$19,898.0
$8,259.0
$28,157.0
88.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$767.0
($856.0)
($89.0)
-0.5
Program Project Description:
The Acid Rain Program, established under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,
requires major reductions in Sulfur Dioxide (802) and Nitrogen Oxide (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. also is committed, under the US-Canada
Air Quality Agreement of 1991, to making reductions in SO2 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 SO2 program component uses a market-based approach with tradable units called
"allowances" (one allowance authorizes the emission of one ton of 802) and sets a permanent
cap in 2010 on the total amount of SO2 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
(CAIR) is modeled after the Acid Rain SO2 program and relies on existing authorities to reduce
emissions which contribute to interstate air pollution transport and interfere with other states'
ability to meet the PM 2.s and ozone standards. Using a market-based approach for both SO2 and
NOX emissions, CAIR is projected to reduce pollution from electrical power generation sources
in the covered states by close to 70 percent, when fully implemented. For additional information
on the Acid Rain Program, please visit http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/.
At the request of the states, EPA has administered the NOX Budget Program (NBP), a market-
based cap and trade program for reducing NOX emissions and transported ozone in the eastern
U.S., for almost a decade. The initial program under the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
began in 1999. The OTC program ended as a separate entity in 2003, integrating fully with the
broader Regional NBP under the NOX State Implementation Plan (SIP) Call. Affected NBP
185
-------
sources include boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units from a diverse set of industries as
well as electric utility units.
In 2008, the NBP will have expanded to 20 states and D.C. and required NOX monitoring for the
CAIR seasonal program begins in these jurisdictions plus six additional states affected for ozone
under CAIR. The first compliance season for the CAIR seasonal program begins in FY 2009.
Based on data reported to EPA, in 2006, there were approximately 2,580 affected and operating
units in the 19 NBP states and D.C.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009; through the Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs, EPA is projected to measure,
quality assure, and track emissions for SC>2 and/or NOX from Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMs) or equivalent monitoring methods at approximately 4,600 electric utility units
and 330 industrial units. In addition, the program will conduct audits and certify emissions
monitors. Through the 862 Allowance Tracking System (ATS) and NOX Allowance Tracking
System (NATS), allowance transfers are recorded and reconciled against emissions for all
affected sources to ensure compliance. The NATS is expanding into the CAIR seasonal and
CAIR annual NOX allowance tracking systems. The volume of allowances recorded, tracked,
and reconciled against emissions beginning in FY 2009 is projected to be approximately four
times the volume in the current NATS, or over 2.2 million allowances. Separate activities
determine compliance for approximately 980 coal-fired utility boilers with the Acid Rain NOX
emission rate reduction program.
By FY 2009, the NOX Budget Program (NBP) will have become the CAIR seasonal NOX
program and will include six additional states and approximately 800 additional units. EPA will
assist all the states, both prior NBP and new states, with program implementation, especially
activities related to allowance trading, emissions monitoring, and end-of-season reconciliation of
emissions with allowances. Required NOX monitoring for the CAIR seasonal program began 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 a rating of
"moderately effective." Both the Academy of Sciences and OMB have commended EPA on
Acid Rain's accountability program which relies on the Clean Air Status and Trends Network
(CASTNET) for monitoring deposition, ambient sulfate and nitrate concentrations, and other air
quality indicators. EPA is working to develop and implement an industry-oriented measure of
program efficiency for PART that takes into consideration the full cost of the program by Spring
2008. 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 by December 2008.
186
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Tons of sulfur
dioxide emissions
from electric power
generation sources
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
7008
FY 2007
Target
7,500,000
FY 2008
Target
8,000,000
FY 2009
Target
8,000,000
Units
Tons
Reduced
Reducing emissions of 862 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 SC>2 and NOX can be
chemically transformed into sulfates and nitrates ("acid rain particulate"), which are very tiny
particles that can be carried, by winds, hundreds 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 862 and NOX. The
Agency tracks percent change in average annual sulfur deposition and average annual nitrogen
deposition. Targets have been established for every third year; the next planned report date is
2010.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$332.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$435.0) This total reflects the net change including restoration of the FY 2008
Omnibus 1.56% rescission and will support assessment work designed to measure
whether programs are achieving environmental benefits.
• (-0.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
187
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$22,744.8
$22,744.8
108.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$26,504.0
$26,504.0
105.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$26,091.0
$26,091.0
105.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$26,787.0
$26,787.0
105.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$696.0
$696.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is responsible for setting, reviewing, and revising the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and for setting national emission standards
for sources of criteria and 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. Please see
http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/ for more details.
The CAA requires EPA to set 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 six of the most pervasive air pollutants: particulate
matter (PM), ozone, sulfur dioxide (802), nitrogen dioxide (NC^), carbon monoxide (CO), and
lead.
This program includes activities directed toward reducing air emissions of toxic pollutants from
stationary sources. People exposed to certain toxic air pollutants are at increased risk of cancer
or other serious health effects. Specifically, this program relates to the development of control
technology-based standards for major sources (i.e., Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards) and area sources, the development of standards of performance and
emissions guidelines for waste combustion sources, the assessment and regulation of residual
risk remaining after implementation of the control technology-based standards, the periodic
review and revision of the control technology-based standards, implementation of the Urban Air
Toxics strategy, and associated national guidance and outreach information. This program also
includes issuing, reviewing, and periodically revising, as necessary, new source performance
standards for criteria and certain listed pollutants, standards to limit emissions of Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) from consumer and commercial products, and establishment of
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) through issuance and periodic review and
revision of control technique guidelines.
188
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The following chart illustrates EPA's schedule to review criteria pollutants (listed in priority
order) and the current status of the NAAQS reviews:
Proposal
January 2011
June 2007
October 20 11
March 2008
May 2009
February 2010
Criteria Pollutant
Next PM
Ozone
CO
Lead
Nitrogen Dioxide*
Primary
Secondary
Final
October 20 11
March 2008
July 2012
September 2008
December 2009
October 20 10
Proposal
July 2009
February 20 10
Criteria Pollutant
Sulfur Dioxide*
Primary
Secondary
Final
March 20 10
October 20 10
* 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, multi-
pollutant, and cost-effective sector-based approaches. In FY 2009, resources will be devoted to
finalizing the area source standards currently under court-ordered deadlines, as well as updating
several MACT standards recently vacated by the courts.
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.
189
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative
percentage reduction
in tons of toxicity-
weighted (for cancer
risk) emissions of
air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
35
FY 2008
Target
35
FY 2009
Target
36
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative
percentage reduction
in tons of toxicity-
weighted (for
noncancer risk)
emissions of air
toxics from 1 993
baseline.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
58
FY 2008
Target
59
FY 2009
Target
59
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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$360.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$336.0) This total reflects the net change including restoration of the FY 2008
Omnibus 1.56% rescission and will assist in meeting regulatory and court-ordered
deadlines.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661F).
190
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$95,576.0
$9,104.1
$104,680.1
694.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$90,490.0
$10,886.0
$101,376.0
700.7
FY 2008
Enacted
$89,464.0
$12,118.0
$101,582.0
700.7
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$95,538.0
$11,086.0
$106,624.0
709.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,074.0
($1,032.0)
$5,042.0
9.0
Program Project Description:
The Federal support program assists state, Tribal, and local air pollution control agencies in the
development, implementation, and evaluation of programs to implement the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the visibility protection program. 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 and protect visibility. 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 six 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 state 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 ecological welfare within the U.S. This program
also supports the development of risk assessment methodologies for the criteria air pollutants.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Particulate Matter is the single greatest ground-level air pollution threat and is linked to tens of
thousands of premature deaths per year. In addition, repeated exposure to ozone can cause acute
respiratory problems and lead to permanent lung damage. Therefore, implementation of the PM
and Ozone standards is one of the Agency's highest priorities. EPA will continue to devote
resources to support these revised NAAQS by developing policies to address transition issues
191
-------
between the pre-existing and new standards. EPA will designate areas as attaining or not
attaining the 2006 PM 2 5 standards and work with states to develop information to designate
areas for possible new ozone standards. EPA also will provide limited technical and policy
assistance to states developing Regional haze implementation plans. EPA will continue to
review and act on SIP submissions in accordance with the CAA.
EPA will continue to implement the recommendations of the National Research Council (NRC).
This includes: (1) developing a more integrated multiple pollutant management framework that
incorporates criteria and toxic air pollutants; (2) incorporating ecosystem impacts, community
effects, and future air quality and climate interactions; and (3) assessing progress of air programs
through an accountability framework. EPA will continue to evaluate and implement, as
appropriate, a limited set of reform recommendations of the Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee's Subcommittee on Air Quality Management, focusing on the longer-term
improvements recommended in 2007. This includes working with selected state and local
agencies to pilot comprehensive multi-pollutant air quality planning programs. Key elements of
these programs are to create comprehensive plans that include not only multi-pollutant air quality
planning, but also make connections to and integrate with local land use, energy and
transportation planning. In addition, EPA will continue to review issues on reactivity of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and propose appropriate updates to the VOC control policy.
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 Phase I CAIR reductions occur by FY 2009 and FY
2010, as required, to support attainment of the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS.
EPA will provide assistance to 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 maintain these tools (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
maintain, where possible, multiple pollutant monitoring sites to support the development and
evaluation of multiple pollutant air management strategies. EPA will continue development of
emissions measurement methods for condensable PM 2.5 for cross-industry application to ensure
accurate and consistent measurement methods can be employed in the NAAQS implementation
program. EPA will continue work with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
on accountability as they work with public health agencies to assess more broadly the progress of
air regulations on public health outcomes.
EPA also will continue to assist other Federal agencies and state and local governments in
implementing the conformity regulations during this period. The regulations require Federal
192
-------
agencies, taking actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas, to determine that the emissions
caused by their actions will conform to the SIP.
EPA will continue to participate in global and continental air quality management efforts
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, and Mexico).
EPA will continue to operate and maintain the automated Air Quality Subsystem (AQS), which
houses the nation's air quality data and allows for data and technology exchange/transfer. EPA
will modify the AQS, as necessary, to reflect new ambient monitoring regulations and to ensure
that it complies with only the most critical 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 continue the development of the new emissions inventory system (EIS) by completing
the function that allows states to enter their emissions data and begin limited testing, tuning and
training. The EIS will allow EPA and its stakeholders comprehensive national access to needed
program information more efficiently than ever before.
EPA will continue to focus on the timely issuance of renewal permits and to respond to veto
petitions under the Title V operating permits program. EPA also will continue to address
monitoring issues in underlying Federal and state rules. EPA also will take appropriate action to
more broadly improve the Title V program by implementing a limited set of recommendations
from the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee's Task Force on Title V program performance
(http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/permits/).
EPA also will support the expansion of energy permitting work in the Regions. Among other
areas, EPA will perform monitoring support associated with permit issuance and NEPA
evaluation.
EPA will continue its New Source Review (NSR) reform efforts by finalizing rules currently
under development. EPA will continue to work with state and Tribal governments to implement
revisions to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements and NSR rules, including
updates to delegation agreements (for delegated states) and review of implementation plan
revisions (for SIP-approved states). EPA also will continue to review and respond to
reconsideration requests and (working with DOJ) legal challenges related to NSR program
revisions, and will take any actions necessary to respond to court decisions. EPA also will
continue to work with industries on pollutant measurement issues affecting NSR applicability.
The NAAQS Federal program, PARTed in 2005, received a rating of "adequate." EPA will
continue 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 by December 2008. The Air Quality Grants and
193
-------
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 will continue to
develop measures of permit program efficiency and make program adjustments to ensure targets
are met by December 2008.
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 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
3
FY 2008
Target
4
FY 2009
Target
5
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in
population-weighted
ambient
concentration of
ozone in monitored
counties from 2003
baseline.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
6
FY 2008
Target
8
FY 2009
Target
10
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of major
NSR permits issued
within one year of
receiving a complete
permit application.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
75
FY 2008
Target
78
FY 2009
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 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
87
FY 2008
Target
91
FY 2009
Target
95
Units
Percentage
194
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of
significant Title V
operating permit
revisions issued
within 1 8 months of
receiving a complete
permit application.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
97
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Cumulative percent
reduction in the
number of days to
process State
Implementation Plan
revisions, weighted
by complexity.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
7008
FY 2007
Target
0
FY 2008
Target
-1.2
FY 2009
Target
-2.4
Units
Percentage
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 and the remaining ozone nonattainment areas into attainment by the CAA-
prescribed date, ranging from FY 2009 - FY 2024.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3,867.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$407.0) This total reflects the net change including restoration of the FY 2008
Omnibus 1.56% rescission and will assist in providing technical and benefits assessment
support to the states, locals, and tribes to implement the NAAQS and visibility protection
programs.
• (+$1,800.0 / +9.0 FTE) This increase supports the expansion of energy permitting work
in the Regional offices to keep pace with the nation's burgeoning energy exploration and
development. EPA will use the requested funds to: prepare permits and NEPA reviews;
conduct modeling and analysis of emerging technologies (such as coal liquefaction and
oil shale recovery); and perform monitoring support associated with permit issuance and
NEPA evaluation.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
195
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$25,081.8
$1,804.1
$26,885.9
141.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$24,711.0
$2,252.0
$26,963.0
141.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$24,390.0
$2,220.0
$26,610.0
141.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$22,693.0
$2,303.0
$24,996.0
141.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,697.0)
$83.0
($1,614.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Federal support program assists State, Tribal and local air pollution control agencies and
communities with modeling, inventories, monitoring, assessments, strategy and program
development and 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 (NEI)
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. Effective implementation of
air toxics standards will lead to reduction of emissions of air toxic; which are known to cause
increased risk of cancer or other serious health effects.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to maintain the 2002 National Emission Inventory and to accept
National Inventory Files from States for use in the reengineered 2008 NEI. The NEI will be used
by EPA, states, and others to analyze the public health risks from air toxics, and develop
strategies to manage that risk and support multipollutant analysis covering both air toxics and
NAAQS pollutants. EPA also will be ready to accept and perform data quality and analytical
work in mid-2010. The completed 2008 National Emission Inventory System will be a better-
automated, more accurate, multi-pollutant inventory integrating criteria pollutants and HAP data.
For more information visit: (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html)
To aid the Agency in characterizing risk, EPA will continue to work with state and local
agencies, via the National Air Monitoring Steering Committee, to implement the National Air
Toxics Monitoring Network. The network has two main 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 25 permanent monitoring sites with plans
196
-------
to expand the network in FY08 and FY09 to 28-30 sites. The LSMs are comprised of scores of
short-term monitoring projects, each designed to address specific local issues. In FY09, 12-16
additional community scale monitoring projects will be initiated. For more 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 by constructing and organizing initiatives around industrial sectors. The focus of these
efforts will be to address a sector's emissions comprehensively and prioritize regulatory efforts
on the pollutants of greatest concern. EPA will look at all pollutants in an industrial sector and
look for ways to take advantage of the co-benefits of pollution control. Reducing emissions of
one pollutant often presents cost-effective opportunities to reduce emissions of additional air
pollutants. Sector and multi-pollutant approaches can take many forms (e.g. cap and trade, opt-
in, plant-wide programs) and will continue to evolve as solutions are developed and tailored to
address the differing nature of the various sectors. EPA will continue to improve both ambient
and source air toxics measurement/monitoring methods via these innovative approaches.
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. The improvements made in FY
2009 and those improvements made in earlier years for both multi-scale and multimedia
modeling will continue to be evaluated. 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 continue to develop a true multimedia modeling framework that
links air quality models with watershed/water surface models. Enhanced monitoring efforts will
provide needed information for model intercomparison and validation studies.
EPA also anticipates a network of 10 atmospheric mercury monitoring stations using
standardized procedures and a coordinated data management system will be operational in 2009,
with partial EPA support and co-funding by partnering organizations. These sites will
complement the existing Mercury Deposition Network, which measures wet-only mercury
deposition. EPA anticipates continued support of site operation, coordination, quality assurance,
and data management expenses in the out years.
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
197
-------
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 cancer
risk) emissions of
air toxics from 1993
baseline.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2009
FY 2007
Target
35
FY 2008
Target
35
FY 2009
Target
36
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative
percentage reduction
in tons oftoxicity-
weighted (for
noncancer risk)
emissions of air
toxics from 1 993
baseline.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2009
FY 2007
Target
58
FY 2008
Target
59
FY 2009
Target
59
Units
Percentage
Performance targets for reduction of toxicity weighted emissions also are supported by work
under the Federal Stationary Source Regulations program project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$628.0) This reflects increases for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$2,325.0) This total reflects the net change including restoration of the FY 2008
Omnibus 1.56% rescission and will delay the implementation of the new Emissions
Inventory System and the 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NET) and National Scale
Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) databases.
Statutory Authority:
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401-7661f).
198
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$10,172.7
$2,126.1
$1,960.9
$14,259.7
89.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,186.0
$2,120.0
$2,373.0
$14,679.0
88.6
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,057.0
$2,087.0
$2,342.0
$14,486.0
88.6
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$10,533.0
$2,109.0
$2,414.0
$15,056.0
88.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$476.0
$22.0
$72.0
$570.0
0.0
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 private sector entities 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 also supports assessment of new scientific findings in order to conduct radiation risk
assessments and develops the technical tools and the 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
also is utilized by EPA to develop radiation protection and risk management policy, guidance,
and rulemakings.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue its oversight work to ensure 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. EPA will conduct inspections of waste
generator facilities and evaluate DOE's compliance with applicable environmental laws and
regulations every 5 years.
1 Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/assessment/index.html last accessed 7/25/2007.
2 Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/WIPP/ last accessed 7/25/2007.
199
-------
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
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.
In FY 2009, EPA will begin to implement revisions to its cancer risk models and projections
based on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII recommendations. In mid-FY
2008, EPA expects to receive a Science Advisory Board (SAB) consultation report on its draft
report (submitted to the SAB in September 2006) which proposed changes in methods for
estimating risks. Once EPA receives the SAB's report, it will prepare a report that presents
revised methods for calculating radiogenic cancer risks which will again require formal review
by the SAB. Also, during FY 2009, EPA will examine impacts the proposed changes might have
on risk estimates for specific radionuclides as contained in Federal Guidance Report-13 and will
begin 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:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Time to approve site
changes affecting
waste
characterization at
DOE waste
generator sites to
ensure safe disposal
of transuranic
radioactive waste at
WIPP.
FY 2007
Actual
40
FY 2007
Target
43
FY 2008
Target
46
FY 2009
Target
53
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Population covered
by Radiation
Protection Program
monitors per million
dollars invested.
FY 2007
Actual
4,418,000
FY 2007
Target
4,159,000
FY 2008
Target
4,729,000
FY 2009
Target
5,254,000
Units
Dollars
EPA is on track through its ongoing work to accomplish 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 Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) recently approved several outcome-oriented strategic and annual
performance measures for this program in conjunction with its 2007 PART assessment. The
200
-------
measures all have baseline data and some historical data which provide a benchmark to assist in
the development of the outyear targets. The Radiation Program received a rating of "moderately
effective."
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$237.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$239.0) This reflects the net change after restoring the FY 2008 Omnibus 1.56%
rescission and increasing funding to support continued risk assessment of radionuclides.
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; WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.
201
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$2,809.7
$3,375.6
$6,185.3
39.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,928.0
$3,721.0
$6,649.0
42.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,882.0
$3,679.0
$6,561.0
42.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$2,941.0
$4,016.0
$6,957.0
42.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$59.0
$337.0
$396.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA generates policy guidance and procedures for EPA radiological emergency 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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 will design training and exercises to
enhance the RERT's ability to fulfill EPA responsibilities as well as analyze them for
improvements needed for overall radiation response preparedness.3 Through personnel and
asset training and exercises EPA will continue to enhance and maintain its state of readiness for
radiological emergencies.
EPA will continue to coordinate with its interagency partners under the Federal Radiological
Preparedness Coordinating Committee to revise Federal radiation emergency response plans,
develop radiological emergency response protocols and standards. The Agency also will
continue to develop guidance addressing lessons learned from incidents and exercises to ensure
more effective coordination of EPA support with that of other Federal and state response
agencies. EPA also will continue to develop and maintain Protective Action Guides (PAGs) for
Additional information can be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/ last accessed 7/25/2007.
202
-------
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.
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 management, solid waste, and health programs that are responsible for radiological
emergency response and for development of their own preparedness programs.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Level of readiness of
radiation program
personnel and assets
to support federal
radiological
emergency response
and recovery
operations.
FY 2007
Actual
80
FY 2007
Target
83
FY 2008
Target
85
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Average time of
availability of
quality assured
ambient radiation air
monitoring data
during an
emergency.
FY 2007
Actual
1.3
FY 2007
Target
1.3
FY 2008
Target
1
FY 2009
Target
.8
Units
Days
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Level of readiness
of national
environmental
radiological
laboratory capacity
(measured as
percentage of
laboratories
adhering to EPA
quality criteria for
emergency response
and recovery
decisions.
FY 2007
Actual
20
FY 2007
Target
21
FY 2008
Target
35
FY 2009
Target
50
Units
Percentage
203
-------
EPA expects to be on track through its ongoing work to accomplish 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 Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) recently approved several outcome-oriented strategic and
annual performance measures for this program in conjunction with its 2007 PART assessment.
The measures all have baseline data and some historical data which provide a benchmark to
assist in the development of the outyear targets. The Radiation Program received a rating of
"moderately effective."
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
(+$59.0) 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 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 EAA, as
amended, 42 U.S.C 5121 et seq.; SDWA.
204
-------
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Program Area: Air Toxics and Quality
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air; Protect the Ozone Layer
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$5,280.0
$5,280.0
25.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,489.0
$4,489.0
23.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,119.0
$5,119.0
23.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$4,696.0
$4,696.0
23.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($423.0)
($423.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on earth by preventing harmful ultra-violet (UV)
radiation from reaching the earth's surface. Scientific evidence amassed over the past 30 years
has shown that Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) used around the world are destroying the
stratospheric ozone layer.4 Increased levels of UV radiation due to ozone depletion are expected
to raise the incidence of skin cancer, cataracts, and other illnesses.5 Skin cancer is the most
common type of cancer and accounts for more than 50 percent of all cancers in adults.6
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
2165.7 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.8
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.
Since ODS and many of their substitutes are also potent greenhouse gases, reduction and
appropriate control of these materials also will provide the important co-benefit of reduced
emissions of greenhouse gases. The Act provides for a phaseout of production and consumption
4 World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006. Geneva, Switzerland. 2007.
5 Fahey, D.W. (Lead Author), World Health Organization, et. al. "Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer: 2006
Update, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, World Meteorological Organization, March 2007.
6 American Cancer Society. "What are the Key Statistics for Melanoma?" Accessed July 18, 2007. Available on the Internet at
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_lX_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_melanoma_50.asp?sitearea=
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010: EPAReportto
Congress. EPA: Washington, DC. November 1999.
8 WMO, 2007.
205
-------
of ODS and requires controls on various products containing ODS or their substitutes. As a
signatory to the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. also is committed to regulating and enforcing its
terms domestically.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In carrying out the requirements of the Act and the Montreal Protocol in FY 2009, EPA will
continue to implement the domestic rulemaking agenda for reduction and control of ODS. EPA
will provide compliance assistance and enforce rules controlling their production, import, and
emission.
In FY 2009, EPA will focus its work to both assure that currently required caps on production
and import are met, as well as on approving the use of alternatives to ODS to assist the market's
transition to safer, non-ozone depleting alternatives. EPA also will assure that management of
ODS and their substitutes meets Clean Air Act requirements by limiting emissions to the
atmosphere.
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 and their substitutes, 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 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2009
FY 2007
Target
<9,900
FY 2008
Target
<9,900
FY 2009
Target
<9,900
Units
OOP MTs
206
-------
• 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 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 chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in 1989 plus
the ODP-weighted level of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$508.0) This reduction reflects the net change after restoring the FY 2008 Omnibus
1.56% rescission and eliminating funding for the Sun Wise program.
• (+$85.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990, Title I, Parts A and D (42U.S.C. 7401-7434, 7501-7515), Title V
(42 U.S.C. 7661-7661 f), and Title VI (42 U.S.C. 7671-7671q); The Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
207
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$11,315.0
$11,315.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,865.0
$9,865.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$9,711.0
$9,711.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$9,865.0
$9,865.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$154.0
$154.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on earth by preventing harmful ultra-violet (UV)
radiation from reaching the earth's surface. Scientific evidence amassed over the past 30 years
has shown that Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs) used around the world are destroying the
stratospheric ozone layer.9 Increased levels of UV radiation due to ozone depletion are expected
to raise the incidence of skin cancer, cataracts, and other illnesses.10 Skin cancer is the most
common type of cancer and accounts for more than 50 percent of all cancers in adults.11
Increased UV levels also have been associated with other human and non-human risks, including
immune suppression and effects on aquatic ecosystems and agricultural crops.
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 U.S. 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 2165.12
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 atmospheric lifetimes of ODS.13
World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006. Geneva, Switzerland. 2007.
10 Fahey, D.W. (Lead Author), World Health Organization, et. al. "Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer:
2006 Update, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, World Meteorological Organization, March 2007.
11 American Cancer Society. "What are the Key Statistics for Melanoma?" Accessed July 18, 2007. Available on the Internet at
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_lX_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_melanoma_50.asp?sitearea=..
12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2010: EPA Report to
Congress. EPA: Washington, DC. November 1999.
13 WMO, 2007.
208
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA's contributions to the Multilateral Fund in FY 2009 will help 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 upon project
activities have been implemented to date, with remaining work in these already agreed upon
projects expected to be fully implemented by 2010. Additional projects will be considered and
approved in accordance with Multilateral Fund guidelines to address the remaining 9,155 metric
tonnes of ODS (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:
• 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 ODS. The base of comparison
for assessing the program is the domestic consumption cap of class II
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), as set by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Each
ODS is weighted based on the damage it does to the stratospheric ozone — this is the
ozone depletion potential (OOP). 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 ODS. 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.
209
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$154.0) This increase reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission mandated by the FY
2008 Omnibus budget. Support for the Multilateral Fund remains stable between the FY
2008 President's Budget and the FY 2009 President's Budget.
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.
210
-------
Program Area: Brownfields
211
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$25,838.4
$25,838.4
115.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$23,450.0
$23,450.0
127.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$23,665.0
$23,665.0
127.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$22,732.0
$22,732.0
125.9
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($933.0)
($933.0)
-2.0
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 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 2009 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
212
-------
cleanup that encourage Brownfields redevelopment, pilot additional techniques to accomplish
redevelopment within communities, identify new policy and research needs, better track and
report on brownfields properties and create examples and best practices that can be copied in
other communities.
The Smart Growth program will address critical issues for Brownfield redevelopment including
land assembly, development permitting issues, financing, parking and street standards. The
Smart Growth Program will also look at accountability to uniform systems of information for
land use controls, and other factors that influence the economic viability of Brownfields
redevelopment.
Performance Targets:
The Brownfields EPM program contributes to the overall Brownfields program goal and
measures. The Brownfields Projects program contributes to the achievement of all performance
measures and the Brownfields Categorical Grant program contributes to the achievement of the
"properties assessed" measure. The Brownfields EPM program also contributes to EPA efforts
to assess and clean up brownfields, as described in EPA's FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$388.0) This reflects an increase in payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$527.0) The change reflects a decrease in funding for the Smart Growth Program. The
Agency is not maintaining this funding amount for the Smart Growth Program which was
directed by Congress in FY 2008.
• (-$794.0) This change reflects the net effect of the restoration of the 1.56% rescission to
all program projects combined with technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or
other support programs.
• (-2.0 FTE) This decrease reflects a reduction in the Brownfields program staff. These
resources have supported efforts to resolve liability for cleanup and facilitate cleanup,
redevelopment, and reuse of brownfields and to respond to liability issues concerning the
Brownfields grant program at both the headquarters and Regional level.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA as amended by SBLRBRA (Public Law 107-118); RCRA, Section 8001; GMRA
(1990); SWDA; FFGCAA.
213
-------
Program Area: Climate Protection Program
214
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$91,252.1
$14,624.1
$105,876.2
222.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$87,927.0
$13,104.0
$101,031.0
212.5
FY 2008
Enacted
$90,374.0
$18,331.0
$108,705.0
212.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$87,008.0
$11,402.0
$98,410.0
213.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($3,366.0)
($6,929.0)
($10,295.0)
0.5
Program Project Description:
The core of EPA's climate change efforts are innovative, voluntary public-private partnership
programs designed to capitalize on the cost-effective opportunities that consumers, businesses,
and organizations have to invest in greenhouse-gas reducing technologies, policies, and
practices. These investments in energy efficiency and clean energy avoid greenhouse gas
emissions from power plants and mobile sources.
EPA manages a number of efforts, such as the ENERGY STAR program, SmartWay program,
clean energy partnerships, and transportation efficiency programs, all of which remove barriers
in the marketplace in order to deploy cost-effective technologies faster. These programs support
and augment the Agency's regulatory program designed to reduce emissions. 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 the need for
additional incentives for manufacturers to invest in efficiency research and development. EPA
works with the Department of Energy on the ENERGY STAR program; DOE manages the
specification process for approximately 6 product categories and EPA manages the specification
process for more than 50 product categories, the new and existing homes programs, and the
commercial and industrial programs. (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 (Bcf) 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/)
215
-------
EPA's Climate Protection Program has achieved real reductions of carbon dioxide (€62) and
other greenhouse gases such as methane and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). EPA's climate change
programs promote energy efficiency and the development of clean and renewable sources of
energy. Since the investments made by EPA partners as a result of EPA programs often have
lifetimes of ten years or more, actions taken today will continue to deliver environmental and
economic benefits for many years to come. For every dollar spent by EPA on its climate change
partnership programs, EPA estimates that the programs have reduced greenhouse gas emissions
by up to 1.0 metric ton of carbon equivalent (3.67 tons of CO2) and delivered more than $75 in
energy bill savings.14 This is based upon cumulative reductions since 1995.
EPA's carbon removal program evaluates the risks of carbon sequestration to human health and
the environment. The Agency also is designing an inventory and accounting methodology for
carbon sequestration and is initiating a rulemaking to ensure timely and effective permitting of
commercial-scale sequestration projects.
EPA's SmartWay Partnership Program works with transportation technology and freight industry
partners (shipper, carriers, etc.) to overcome the lack of reliable information and financing for
cleaner more fuel efficient transportation technology. SmartWay is on track to reduce between
9-18 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) emissions and up to 200,000 tons of
nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions per year which was its established goal for 2012. At the same
time, the initiative will result in fuel savings of up to 150 million barrels of oil annually.
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 have partnered with Australia,
China, India, Japan, Candada and South Korea to form the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate Change. This partnership focuses 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 helps each country meet nationally designed strategies for
improving energy security, reducing pollution, and addressing the long-term challenge of climate
change.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
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 2009, 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 by accelerating the adoption of energy efficient products
and practices and increasing the supply of clean electricity generation sources and
renewable fuels.
14
Climate Protection Partnerships Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/news/downloads/annual_report20005.pdf
216
-------
• Continue the ENERGY STAR program across the residential, commercial, and industrial
sectors, including:
o Adding new ENERGY STAR qualified product categories and revising
specifications for existing product categories;
o Expanding the ENERGY STAR residential programs to new markets around the
country;
o Supporting more partners in the commercial and industrial sectors in the pursuit
of strategic energy management through ENERGY STAR.
The FY 2009 Budget Request for the ENERGY STAR program totals $44.2 million.
• Continue the SmartWay Transport Partnership to increase energy efficiency and lower
emissions of freight transportation through verification, promotion and low cost financing
of advanced technologies including diesel engine retrofits, anti-idling technologies, lower
rolling resistant tires, improved aerodynamic truck designs, and improved freight
logistics. The FY 2009 Budget Request for the Smartway Transport Partnership program
totals $2.0 million.
• 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. In FY 2007, EPA launched the SmartWay Grow & Go program to promote the
environmental benefits of renewable fuels. This program creates a renewable fuel
component for EPA's existing SmartWay Transport Partnership. Currently, there are
over 600 partners representing the ground freight industry in the SmartWay Transport
Partnership. EPA's goal is for 25 percent of our SmartWay partners to commit to use
renewable fuels, and by 2020 to have 50 percent of our partners commit to use renewable
fuels. On August 24, 2007, SmartWay announced the first 48 Grow & Go partners
(http://www.epa.gov/smartway/growandgo/gats2007. htm).
• Continue the extension of the Methane-to-Markets Partnership by assessing the feasibility
of methane recovery and use projects at landfills, agricultural waste operations, 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, such as
Argentina, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, Republic
of Korea, Russia, Ukraine, and Vietnam with assistance from the private sector and
partners from countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United
Kingdom, and the European Commission. The FY 2009 Budget Request for the Methane
to Markets program totals $4.5 million.
• Continue policy and technical 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.
217
-------
• Produce measurable international greenhouse gas emission reductions through clean
industrialization partnerships with key developing countries, including China, Mexico,
India, and South Korea.
• Continue to actively support the government-wide Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate Change 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. The FY 2009 Budget Request for the Asia-Pacific Partnership
totals $5.0 million.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Tons of
greenhouse gas
emissions
(mmtce)
prevented per
societal dollar in
the building
sector.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Tons of
greenhouse gas
emissions
(mmtce)
prevented per
societal dollar in
the industry
sector.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric
tons of carbon
equivalent
(mmtce) of
greenhouse gas
reductions in the
buildings sector.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
29.4
FY 2008
Target
32.4
FY 2009
Target
35.5
Units
MMTCE
218
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric
tons of carbon
equivalent
(mmtce) of
greenhouse gas
reductions in the
industry sector.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
62.6
FY 2008
Target
67.7
FY 2009
Target
72.9
Units
MMCTE
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Million metric
tons of carbon
equivalent
(mmtce) of
greenhouse gas
reductions in the
transportation
sector.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
0.9
FY 2008
Target
1.5
FY 2009
Target
2.6
Units
MMTCE
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Tons of
greenhouse gas
emissions
(mmtce)
prevented per
societal dollar in
the
transportation
sector.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
Units
Dollars
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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$636.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$5,000.0) This funding will support the Asia-Pacific Partnership. Funding for the work
219
-------
was reduced in the FY 2008 Omnibus. This partnership focuses on voluntary practical
measures taken by Australia, China, India, Japan, Canada and South Korea to accelerate
clean development in the Asia-Pacific region to create new investment opportunities,
build local capacity, and remove barriers to the introduction of clean, more efficient
technologies. EPA works with these nations to develop and deploy innovative
technologies that are cleaner and more efficient.
• (-$250.0) This reduces congressionally directed funding provided in the FY 2008
Omnibus for the Agency to modify existing programs to accommodate quality assurance
and quality control for emissions submitted via and regulated by the established
northeastern Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). All priority activities in this
program can be funded within base resources.
• (-$3,445.0) This reduces congressionally directed funding from the FY 2008 Omnibus
for the Greenhouse Gas Registry. EPA is reviewing available data to maximize efficiency
and reduce potential overlaps while exploring options for integration.
• (-$4,015.0) This total reflects the net change including restoration of the FY 2008
Omnibus 1.56% rescission and reduces congressionally directed funding provided in the
FY 2008 Omnibus for the Energy Star program. All priority activities in this program can
be funded within base resources.
• (-$1292.0) This eliminates the Industrial Carbon outreach program to industry. Priority
funding for outreach to industry on reduction of greenhouse gases is currently provided
by Energy Star, Heat and Power Partnerships, Climate Leaders, Green Power
Partnerships, Methane to Markets and other voluntary programs.
• (+0.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align, resources, skills and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. - Sections 102, 103, 104 and 108; PPA, 42 U.S.C.
13101 et seq. - Sections 6602, 6603, 6604 and 6605; NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. - Section
102; GCPA, 15 U.S.C. 2901 - Section 1103; FTTA, 15 U.S.C. - Section 3701a; CWA, 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq. - Section 104; SWDA, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.- Section 8001; EPA, 42
U.S.C. 16104 et seq.
220
-------
Program Area: Compliance
221
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$28,226.9
$644.1
$267.9
$11.1
$29,150.0
205.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,547.0
$688.0
$291.0
$22.0
$30,548.0
208.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$27,725.0
$709.0
$286.0
$22.0
$28,742.0
203.4
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$26,435.0
$753.0
$303.0
$22.0
$27,513.0
198.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,290.0)
$44.0
$17.0
$0.0
($1,229.0)
-5.0
Program Project Description:
EPA uses four distinct but integrated tools to maximize compliance with the nation's
environmental laws. This includes: compliance assistance (i.e., providing information to
regulated entities about how to comply with often complex regulations); compliance incentives
(i.e., policies to motivate regulated facilities/companies to identify, disclose, and correct
violations); compliance monitoring (i.e., identifying existing violations through on-site
inspections, investigations, and collection and analysis of compliance data); and, civil and
criminal enforcement (i.e., administrative and judicial enforcement actions). These tools are
used in combinations appropriate to address specific noncompliance patterns and environmental
risks.
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, web-based compliance assistance
centers, training, and assistance to other compliance assistance providers. Activities are
measured and reported using the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS).15
15For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.htmL and www.assistancecenters.net.
222
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will provide limited general compliance assistance to the regulated
community, Federal agencies and tribes, and integrate assistance into its enforcement and
compliance assurance efforts. Limited assistance activities will be provided to support the
Enforcement and Compliance Assistance program's National Priorities.
In FY 2009, EPA will reduce direct assistance to the operation of the 17 web-based Compliance
Assistance Centers. The Agency encourages efforts to ensure that the current web-content
remains accurate. EPA will strengthen efforts to encourage the Centers to secure external
funding to support continued operations, and to continue their ability to update Centers with new
information, and to retain the interactive features often used by small businesses and local
governments seeking assistance.
The Federal Facility Enforcement program will provide limited technical guidance to other
Federal agencies on compliance with applicable Executive Orders and environmental laws. In
FY 2009, EPA will also continue working with other Federal agencies to ensure continued
support of the Federal Facilities Stewardship and Compliance Assistance Center
(www.fedcenter.gov). The Agency also will 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).
In FY 2009, EPA will continue refining data elements to ensure accurate reporting into the ICIS,
and build the Agency's capacity to measure compliance assistance 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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture.
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 web-based Compliance Assistance Centers. Due to budget reductions performance
results for FY 2009 are expected to decline.
223
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$104.0) This increase is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE.
• (-$1,619.0 / -5.0 FTE) This sustains a congressional decrease for compliance assistance
centers in the FY 2008 Omnibus.
• (+$225.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to several technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel and other
support costs across programs
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; CERCLA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; EPAct.
224
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$9,448.8
$139.4
$9,588.2
66.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,786.0
$144.0
$9,930.0
74.6
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,618.0
$159.0
$10,777.0
74.6
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$10,263.0
$146.0
$10,409.0
71.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($355.0)
($13.0)
($368.0)
-3.5
Program Project Description:
EPA uses four distinct but integrated tools to maximize compliance with the nation's
environmental laws. This includes: compliance assistance (i.e., providing information to
regulated entities about how to comply with often complex regulations); compliance incentives
(i.e., policies to motivate regulated facilities/companies to identify, disclose, and correct
violations); compliance monitoring (i.e., identifying existing violations through on-site
inspections, investigations, and collection and analysis of compliance data); and, civil and
criminal enforcement (i.e., administrative and judicial enforcement actions). These tools are
used in combinations appropriate to address specific noncompliance patterns and environmental
risks.
EPA's Compliance Incentives program 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 entities to self-disclose 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.
16
FY 2009 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, more than 5,000 facilities
and more than 2,000 companies resolved violations under EPA's Voluntary Disclosure Policies.
In FY 2009, the Agency will continue to use the Audit Policy through outreach to industries.
16
For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/programs/index.html.
225
-------
Examples of EPA's sector-specific efforts include 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.
The Agency is exploring ways to encourage audits and to increase disclosure and settlement of
violations that, once corrected, will yield significant pollutant reductions and environmental
benefits. The Agency is considering how best to encourage new owners of facilities or
businesses to use the Audit Policy and whether to develop a pilot program that would be
implemented beginning in FY 2009. EPA will continue development and implementation of a
system to disclose violations through an EPA Web site and streamlining the process for resolving
routine Audit Policy disclosures of recordkeeping and reporting violations.
In FY 2009, the Compliance Incentives Program 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 program, which is a program that recognizes and motivates top-performing
facilities that consistently meet their legal requirements, have implemented EMS, and made
tangible improvements to their environmental performance.
In FY 2009, 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 2009. This site provides communities with compliance
status and averages 75,000 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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture.
226
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of pollutants
estimated to be
reduced, treated, or
eliminated, as a
re suit of audit
agreements.
FY 2007
Actual
1.2
FY 2007
Target
0.4
FY 2008
Target
0.4
FY 2009
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 programs. 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.
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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$6.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with reductions based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs and realignment of staff from the Policy Analysis and Communications functions
into compliance incentive programs.
• (-3.5 FTE) This is the net effect of moving FTE into compliance incentive (see above)
and a small decrease in staff that will have no major effect on program efficiency.
• (-$349.0) This change reflects the net restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects in addition to several technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
227
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$90,724.6
$1,487.0
$92,211.6
625.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$93,428.0
$1,182.0
$94,610.0
629.5
FY 2008
Enacted
$88,726.0
$1,165.0
$89,891.0
621.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$96,025.0
$1,192.0
$97,217.0
623.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$7,299.0
$27.0
$7,326.0
1.5
Program Project Description:
EPA uses four distinct but integrated tools to maximize compliance with the nation's
environmental laws. This includes: compliance monitoring (i.e., identifying existing violations
through on-site inspections, investigations, and collection and analysis of compliance data); civil
and criminal enforcement (i.e., administrative and judicial enforcement actions); compliance
assistance (i.e., providing information to regulated entities about how to comply with often-
complex regulations); and compliance incentives (i.e., policies to motivate regulated
facilities/companies to identify, disclose, and correct violations). These tools are used in
combinations appropriate to address specific noncompliance patterns and environmental risks.
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. The program conducts compliance inspections/evaluations,
investigations, record reviews, and compliance rate evaluations. The program also responds to
information requests, and tips and complaints from the public. The program conducts these
activities to determine whether conditions exist that 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, evaluating the
use of statistically valid compliance rates for selected national priorities, and the use of that data
to manage the compliance and enforcement program.17
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.18
17 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/index.html.
18 For more information about the Import/Export program, refer to:
www.epa.gov/compliance/international/importexport.html.
228
-------
EPA conducts compliance monitoring activities, as well as coordinates with and provides 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2009, Compliance Monitoring program activities will focus on the national program priorities
selected in FY 2007 for the FY 2009-FY 2014 strategic cycle, as well as improving statistically
valid data collection and evaluation of compliance rates for selected national priorities. The
program also will emphasize the core 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.19
To ensure the quality of these compliance inspections/evaluations/investigations, and statistical
validity of the data, EPA is moving forward in evaluating compliance rates and developing
inspection manuals, national policies, and establishes minimum training requirements for
inspectors. EPA also 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
inspection/evaluation results. Compliance monitoring activities include oversight of and support
to states and tribes, including management of compliance monitoring grants and authorizing
employees of states/tribes to conduct inspections and evaluations on EPA's behalf, where
appropriate. Prior to issuing credentials to employees of states/tribes, EPA must negotiate an
authorization agreement and ensure that state and Tribal inspectors are adequately trained and
that credentials are tracked for security reasons.
EPA's Enforcement and Compliance program will continue its work to integrate technology,
especially software and portable personal computers, into the inspection and evaluation process.
Adopting 21st century tools to accomplish the Agency's mission provides an opportunity to
increase efficiencies in the inspection and evaluation process, improve the timeliness and
accuracy of data collection and entry, provide uniformity in the inspection and evaluation
process, and increase the speed for submitting inspection and evaluation reports. Efforts will
range from information sharing, evaluating equipment, developing software, and providing
funding and technical support.
The Agency will continue its multi-year project to modernize its national enforcement and
compliance data systems, called the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). ICIS is
19 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/ocfopage/npmguidance/index.htm.
229
-------
being developed in three major phases. The FY 2009 contract funding level for ICIS is $6.7
million.
• Phase I of ICIS established a multi-media Federal enforcement and compliance database.
It replaced outdated national and regional systems. It was implemented in FY 2002, and
is the primary system that supports Enforcement and Compliance's Annual Reporting,
including GPRA reporting.
• Phase II of ICIS is the modernization of the Permit Compliance System (PCS), which
supports EPA and state management of the NPDES program. PCS is an old system and
does not meet the current business needs of the NPDES program, especially for wet
weather-related activities. In FY 2006, EPA implemented the first major release of
Modernized PCS, with 21 states, two tribes and nine territories moving to the new
system. EPA is working on additional releases of the modernized system to move the
remaining states to ICIS in three parts:
o Part 1 will enable states to electronically transfer discharge monitoring data
(DMRs) from state systems to our new system. This will allow us to move eight
to 10 states from PCS to our new system in FY 2008.
o Part 2 will create a new electronic tool (called NetDMR) for regulated facilities to
electronically sign and submit their DMRs to ICIS. We expect to launch this
early in FY 2009. This tool will save the regulated community, EPA, and states
millions of dollars each year, give us higher quality data, and improve our
management of the NPDES program.
o Part 3 will enable the remaining states to electronically flow all their data from
their state systems to ICIS.
• Phase III of ICIS is modernization of the Air Facility System (AFS), which will improve
EPA, state, and local tracking of permit compliance and enforcement data for stationary
sources of air pollution.
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 2009. This site, and its more powerful companion tool that serves more than 400
government entities, the Online Targeting and Information System (OTIS), provides
communities with compliance status information, averaging approximately 75,000 queries per
month. The FY 2009 resource level for ECHO is $400 thousand and 1.8 FTE.
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 2007, EPA responded to 1,204 notices (representing 499 import
notices and 705 export notices).
230
-------
The Agency will continue to implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by inspecting
underground storage tanks 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 enforcement program will continue to provide support for workforce deployment issues
relating to the national enforcement priorities. This increase in support will assist in closing
resource gaps for implementation of the national priorities and generate projects that produce
significant environmental benefits nationally.
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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture.
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 2007
Actual
890
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
890
FY 2009
Target
890
Units
Million
pounds
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of
concluded
enforcement cases
requiring
implementation of
improved
environmental
management
practices.
FY 2007
Actual
70
FY 2007
Target
70
FY 2008
Target
70
FY 2009
Target
70
Units
Percentage
231
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of
concluded
enforcement cases
requiring that
pollution be
reduced, treated, or
eliminated.
FY 2007
Actual
27
FY 2007
Target
30
FY 2008
Target
30
FY 2009
Target
30
Units
Percentage
EPA's Monitoring and Enforcement program achieves pollutant reductions, and improvements in
regulated entities' environmental management practices through on-site inspections/evaluations
and 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 actions. The Agency is exploring methodologies to extend the measure by
analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may entail analysis of pollutant
hazards and population exposure.
Estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA have grown
over the past five years. The last two years have seen actuals in the 890 M pounds range, and
therefore our targets are being adjusted upward. However, one or two cases can have a
significant effect on the end-of-year results. These estimates are projections made from future
pollution reduction based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3,330.0) This reflects a net increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$3,174.0 / +1.5 FTE) This change restores a Congressionally-directed cut in the FY
2008 Omnibus. In FY 2009, this funding will be used to return inspections and
evaluations to normal levels of approximately 23,000.
• (+$795.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs. Funds will support policy and systems development.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
232
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
233
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$123,003.7
$1,661.5
$739.2
$125,404.4
914.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$126,645.0
$2,065.0
$884.0
$129,594.0
969.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$129,886.0
$2,072.0
$870.0
$132,828.0
982.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$133,017.0
$2,233.0
$0.0
$135,250.0
958.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,131.0
$161.0
($870.0)
$2,422.0
-23.9
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 collaborates 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.
20
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 efforts, 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
20 For more information visit: www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/index.html:
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/backgnd.htm.
234
-------
role in utilizing these tools, the enforcement program is responsible for oversight of state
performance and ensuring that the national environmental laws are enforced in a consistent,
equitable manner that protects public health and the environment.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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 2004 for the years 2005-2007,
including Clean Water Act "Wet Weather" discharges (water contamination resulting from sewer
overflows, contaminated storm water runoff, and runoff from concentrated animal feeding
operations), violations of the Clean Air Act New Source Review/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration requirements and Air Toxics regulations, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) violations at Mineral Processing facilities, violations of RCRA/Safe Drinking
Water Act/Toxic Substances Control Act/Financial Responsibility requirements, and ensuring
compliance in Indian Country.
The program also will focus FY 2009 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 with a specific focus on
non-compliance identified at federal laboratories and federal underground storage tanks. The
Civil Enforcement program also will support the Environmental Justice program by focusing
enforcement actions on industries that have repeatedly violated environmental laws in
communities that may be disproportionately exposed to risks and harms from the environment,
including minority and/or low-income areas. Minority and/or low income communities
frequently may be disproportionately exposed to environmental harms and risks. EPA works to
protect these and other burdened communities from adverse human health and environmental
effects of its programs consistent with environmental and civil rights laws. Also in FY 2009, the
Integrated Compliance Information System will continue to support the civil enforcement
program by ensuring the security and integrity of environmental compliance data, and building
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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of pollution
FY 2007
Actual
890
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
890
FY 2009
Target
890
Units
Million
235
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
estimated to be
reduced, treated, or
eliminated as a
result of concluded
enforcement actions.
(civil enf)
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
pounds
EPA's Monitoring and Enforcement Program achieves pollutant reductions and improvements in
regulated entities' environmental management practices through the settlement of enforcement
cases. There are many programs evaluated under the Civil Enforcement PART assessment.
These programs include Compliance Assistance, Compliance Incentives, Compliance
Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Enforcement Training, Forensics, Superfund Enforcement, and
categorical grant programs for toxic substances and sectors. One of the key Civil Enforcement
PART program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions. The Agency is exploring methodologies to
strengthen the measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may
entail analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.
Estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA have grown
over the past five years. The last two years have seen actuals in the 890 M pounds range, and
therefore our targets are being adjusted upward. However, one or two cases can have a
significant effect on the end-of-year results. These estimates are projections made from future
pollution reduction based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$7,869.0) This reflects an increase for base payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$5,300 \ -13.0 FTE) This reduces congressionally-directed increase in the FY 2008
Omnibus. Priority activities in this program can be funded within base resources.
• (-$1,497.0 \ -9.2 FTE) This decrease transfers resources to the criminal enforcement
program to continue the Agency's efforts toward increasing the number of criminal
investigators.
• (+$2,059.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects. This funding will ensure the necessary resources to maintain an effective
enforcement program.
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.
236
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$39,721.6
$7,895.7
$47,617.3
259.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,688.0
$9,167.0
$48,855.0
268.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$40,742.0
$9,053.0
$49,795.0
268.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$44,384.0
$7,830.0
$52,214.0
278.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,642.0
($1,223.0)
$2,419.0
9.2
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 knowing 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. Bringing
criminal cases sends a strong message 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 presented 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.21
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the criminal enforcement program will continue implementing its strategic approach
by emphasizing investigations and prosecutions in areas of national and regional enforcement
For more information visit: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/index.html.
237
-------
priority focus, as well as other types of "high impact" cases that affect human health and the
environment, and enhance compliance and deterrence. The criminal enforcement 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 accomplished by establishing an 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 repeated significant non-compliers where
appropriate. Focusing on parallel proceedings and other mechanisms allowing the Agency to use
the most appropriate tools to address environmental violations and crimes will also facilitate
coordination.
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 management oversight controls and national policies in
place 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 2009, the program will use data from the Criminal Case Reporting System made available
through enhancements to be completed in FY 2008. 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 2009, the program also will 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 on EPA's
website. 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. The program developed a
target and baseline for the pollution reduction measure in 2006. The baselines and targets for the
Recidivism and the Pollutant Impact measures will be developed in FY 2008.
238
-------
Performance Targets:
In FY 2009, 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 (FYs 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 2009, the Criminal Enforcement program will report its PART-approved
measures on "improved environmental management" and "recidivism". 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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3,239.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$1,497.0 / +9.2 FTE) This increase transfers FTE and associated payroll resources from
the civil enforcement program to continue the Agency's efforts to increase the number of
criminal investigators.
• (-$1,700.0) This reduces Congressionally-directed funding in the FY 2008 Omnibus.
• (+10.8 FTE) This increase reflects a realignment of FTE from the Superfund
appropriation to the Environmental Program and Management appropriation to more
accurately reflect the nature of the current criminal investigator workload. This
realignment does not reflect a change in the amount of criminal investigator workload.
• (-$1,000.0) In FY 2006, EPA provided these resources to support physical protection of
the Agency's Administrator. These resources are being consolidated with other EPA
security resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program project. There
is no negative impact to the criminal enforcement program because these resources were
provided for the protection of the Administrator and not to investigate or prosecute
environmental crimes.
• (+$700.0) This increase provides resources for Permanent Change of Station (PCS)
moves to deploy criminal investigators to duty stations where they can best meet the
program's mission needs.
• (+$906.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
239
-------
costs across programs. Funds will be used to support ongoing and new criminal
investigations.
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).
240
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$2,668.3
$630.7
$3,299.0
20.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,145.0
$840.0
$3,985.0
20.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,096.0
$827.0
$3,923.0
20.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$3,043.0
$858.0
$3,901.0
20.9
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($53.0)
$31.0
($22.0)
0.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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"
training information clearinghouse includes links to course offering lists, as well as tools for
Agency training providers to assist with developing, managing, and evaluating the program's
training.22
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
22 For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html
241
-------
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is considering transitioning the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA
strategic architecture.
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 2007
Actual
890
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
890
FY 2009
Target
890
Units
Million
pounds
One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions. The Agency is exploring methodologies to
strengthen the measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may
entail analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.
Estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA have grown
over the past five years. The last two years have seen actuals in the 890 M pounds range, and
therefore our targets are being adjusted upward. However, one or two cases can have a
significant effect on the end-of-year results. These estimates are projections made from future
pollution reduction based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$73.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$126.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
combined with technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support costs
across programs
Statutory Authority:
PPA; RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; TSCA; FIFRA; ODA;
NAAEC; LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
242
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$6,319.2
$911.1
$7,230.3
23.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,822.0
$757.0
$4,579.0
16.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,399.0
$745.0
$7,144.0
16.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$3,811.0
$757.0
$4,568.0
16.9
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($2,588.0)
$12.0
($2,576.0)
0.0
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 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 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 Environmental Justice 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.23
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to enhance its environmental justice integration and collaborative
problem-solving initiatives. By fully integrating environmental justice considerations within its
programs, policies, and activities, EPA will build greater capacity within its Headquarters and
Regional offices to better address the environmental and/or human health concerns of all
communities, including minority and/or low-income communities. For example, EPA's
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program will continue to develop the Environmental
Justice Strategic Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) and other online geographic assessment tools, and
conduct environmental justice program reviews. Through its financial assistance and training
programs, EPA helps to build collaborative problem-solving capacity within communities
affected disproportionately to environmental risks and harms.
23 For more information on the Environmental Justice program, please refer to:
www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaliustice/index.html.
243
-------
In FY 2009, EPA's Environmental Justice program will continue to lead an Agency-wide effort
to more fully integrate environmental justice considerations into EPA's programs and operations,
including its five-year strategic planning and annual budget processes. The Agency's Strategic
Plan reflects 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.
The program also will 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 will test the EJSEAT tool to help ensure that
enforcement and compliance activities focus on communities that need the most attention. The
EJSEAT uses a set of indicators to help the enforcement program identify areas that may have
significant environmental and/or public health issues.
EJSEAT can potentially enhance EPA's ability to protect burdened communities, including
minority 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). Since FY 2005, the
enforcement program has made environmental justice an element of each of its national
priorities. The assessment tool was field-tested as part of an extensive agency review process
during FY 2007. The tool will undergo a comprehensive national test during FY 2008 to
determine how to best deploy an assessment tool that will: 1) 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," 2) assist the
enforcement program make fair and efficient resource deployment decisions, and 3) consistently
analyze how enforcement actions have affected areas with minority and/or low-income
populations.
In addition, EPA will enhance and maintain the Online Environmental Justice Geographical
Assessment Tool (EJGAT), to help individuals, government, industry, and organizations better
identify and address environmental and public health issues that may affect them. The EJGAT
provides ready access to environmental, public health, economic, and social demographic
information from EPA and other government sources.
In FY 2009, 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. Since
1994, EPA has awarded more than $31 million to over 1,100 community-based organizations
and others to address local environmental and/or health issues.
244
-------
In FY 2009, 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 Environmental Justice program also will 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.
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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture.
Performance Targets:
This program was included in the Civil Enforcement PART review in 2004, which received an
overall rating of "adequate" based on development of a Measures Implementation Plan. One of
the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution
as a result of enforcement actions. The Agency is exploring methodologies to extend the
measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may entail analysis of
pollutant hazards and population exposure. Work under this program supports the Healthy
Communities objective. By 2011, 30 communities with potential environmental justice concerns
will achieve significant measurable environmental or public health improvement through
collaborative problem-solving strategies.
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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$253.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$2,678.0) This reduces the Congressionally-directed funding in the FY 2008 Omnibus.
• (-$163.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
combined with technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support costs
across programs.
245
-------
Statutory Authority:
Executive Order 12898; RCRA; CWA; SDWA; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; FIFRA; NEPA;
Pollution Prevention Act.
246
-------
NEPA Implementation
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$13,863.5
$13,863.5
108.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$14,366.0
$14,366.0
104.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$14,142.0
$14,142.0
104.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$16,295.0
$16,295.0
106.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,153.0
$2,153.0
2.0
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) that
evaluate 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 (ASTCA).
In addition, the program fosters cooperation with other Federal agencies to ensure compliance
with applicable environmental statutes, promotes better integration of pollution prevention and
ecological risk assessment elements into their programs, and provides 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 (EOs).24
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to work with other Federal agencies to streamline and to improve
their NEPA processes. Work also will continue to focus on a number of key areas such as review
and comment on the amount 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. In F Y
1 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa.
247
-------
2007, the program completed the national deployment of the web-based NEPAssist
environmental assessment tool, which assists Federal, state, and local agencies identify
nationally/regionally significant environmental features/resources and streamline their respective
environmental review processes. In FY 2007, approximately 70 percent of the environmental
effects identified by EPA were reduced through project modifications and/or the inclusion of
mitigation commitments. Of particular note, EPA's comments on the EIS on the Red River
Valley Water Supply Project, in North Dakota, helped ensure that the project will cause no
significant adverse water quality effects from the potential inter-basin transfer of invasive
species. EPA's successful collaboration efforts with Federal land management agencies in the
west ensures the growing number of oil and natural gas development projects in that area do not
cause significant adverse air quality impacts.
The NEPA Implementation program also guides EPA's own compliance with NEPA, other
applicable statutes and EOs, 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, the Agency implemented the revised 40 CFR Part 6 Regulations "Procedures for
Implementing the Requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality on the National
Environmental Policy Act," which established a number of new Categorical Exclusions to
streamline EPA's NEPA compliance process. In FY 2009, 90 percent 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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic architecture.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$796.0) This reflects a net increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (-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
248
-------
• impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out
its programs.
• (+$1,000.0 / +3.0 FTE) This reflects additional resources for the increased workload for
energy-related direct implementation permitting and NEPA document reviews, in order
to reduce the review and assessment times of NEPA evaluations and promote innovative
and collaborate problem solving.
• (+$357.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs. Funds will support NEPA analyses for priority projects.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; NEPA; ASTCA; CWA; ESA; NHPA; AHPA; FCMA; FWCA; EO 12898.
249
-------
Program Area: Geographic Programs
250
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$20,274.1
$20,274.1
22.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$28,768.0
$28,768.0
21.7
FY 2008
Enacted
$30,528.0
$30,528.0
21.7
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$29,001.0
$29,001.0
22.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,527.0)
($1,527.0)
1.0
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 EPA as the Federal
government representative; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative body;
Maryland; Virginia; Pennsylvania; Delaware; New York; West Virginia; the District of
Columbia; 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. The challenge is to reduce pollution and restore aquatic habitat to the
extent that the Bay's waters can be removed from the Clean Water Act (CWA) "impaired"
waters list.
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) has shown how Federal agencies and states can work
together collaboratively. The greatest success in the last 5 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;
• To meet the new water quality standards, the adoption of nutrient and sediment
allocations for all parts of the watershed 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;
• A common National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
approach for all significant wastewater treatment facilities that unites both upstream and
251
-------
downstream states in the enforcement of the new water quality standards and allocations,
including implementation of watershed permitting and nutrient trading.
(For more information see http://www.epa.gov/region03/chesapeake/.)
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Progress on Bay restoration must be accelerated substantially as the restoration goal of 2010
approaches. EPA remains firmly committed to the 2010 goal and will continue working with
other Bay Program partners to identify additional opportunities to accelerate progress and ensure
that water quality objectives are achieved as soon as possible. The water quality standards and
permitting approach, which applies to more than 450 facilities basin-wide, will speed up nutrient
reductions from wastewater facilities. To maximize the Federal investment, EPA places a
premium on improving access to available assistance programs and targeting them to measures
that yield the greatest water quality benefit for the expenditure, as well as using innovative
approaches such as nutrient trading and watershed permitting programs.
CBP partners are emphasizing implementation of the most cost-effective BMPs, using the
Program's analytical capability. Priorities for funding restoration efforts were established by
CBP leaders in 2005 to help focus available resources. EPA and its partners are also funding
watershed projects to 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 2009:
• Fully implement base clean water programs in the Bay. Core CWA programs provide a
foundation of water pollution control and wetlands protection that is critical to protecting
and restoring Chesapeake Bay tidal waters. Clean Air Act regulations controlling
emissions of nitrogen compounds also contribute substantially to Bay restoration.
• Support implementation of watershed permitting and nutrient trading programs. A 2005
study identified ways to use EPA's regulatory authorities more effectively to advance
Bay restoration, and these recommendations are being implemented. In FY 2009, EPA
will support implementation of watershed permitting and nutrient trading programs.
EPA and the states will set stronger nutrient limits for wastewater facilities under the
Chesapeake Bay permitting approach. New NPDES Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation (CAFO) permit requirements will be put in place. To curb urban/suburban
storm water loads and damage to the watershed's carrying capacity from rapidly
increasing impervious surface acreage and loss of riparian buffers, EPA will cooperate
with partners to strengthen implementation of NPDES municipal separate storm sewer
systems (MS4) and construction permit requirements.
• Accelerate Bay cleanup by focusing on the most cost-effective nutrient-sediment control
and key habitat restoration strategies. The states' pollution control and habitat restoration
strategies (tributary strategies) define specific, localized approaches for reducing nutrient
252
-------
and sediment loads from agricultural operations, the largest category of sources. They
emphasize agricultural BMPs such as nutrient management, low/no-till cultivation, cover
crops, and forest buffer restoration, which are among the most cost-effective of all
measures for controlling nutrient-sediment pollution loads. EPA and state partners will
integrate tributary strategy implementation with Farm Bill programs.
• Enhance the use of monitoring, modeling and demonstration projects to target and assess
the effectiveness of restoration actions. EPA is upgrading its watershed modeling
capability, to improve tributary strategy planning and assessment. The Chesapeake Bay
Phase 5 Watershed Model is being calibrated and verified for management application.
EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are upgrading the Chesapeake Bay water quality
model and are cooperating with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture to
organize an assessment of regional sediment management.
• Strengthen accountability for implementation of restoration measures. In 2006 and 2007,
the CBP substantially revised its indicators and reporting for Chesapeake Bay health and
restoration, both to improve accountability and to respond to recommendations from the
Government Accountability Office. The indicators will be expanded in 2008-2009 to
include tributary health and restoration reporting. EPA, NOAA, and the states will
collaborate on improved integration of water quality and fisheries monitoring and
reporting under the CBP's precedent-setting agreement in 2005 to establish ecosystem-
based fisheries management for the Chesapeake Bay.
• 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. EPA and the Bay states will strengthen partnerships with
complementary Federal agency programs that fund agricultural conservation and
ecosystem restoration, manage lands and fisheries, and contribute to Bay scientific
understanding.
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 2009 request. 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
Efficiency
Measure
Total nitrogen
reduction practices
implementation
achieved a a result of
agricultural best
FY 2007
Actual
43,529
FY 2007
Target
47,031
FY 2008
Target
48,134
FY 2009
Target
49,237
Units
Pounds
253
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
management practice
implementation per
million dollars to
implement
agricultural BMPs.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of point
source phosphorus
reduction goal of
6.16 million pounds
achieved.
FY 2007
Actual
87
FY 2007
Target
84
FY 2008
Target
85
FY 2009
Target
87
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
Measure
Type
Outcome
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 2007
Actual
62
FY 2007
Target
64
FY 2008
Target
66
FY 2009
Target
69
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
Measure
Type
Outcome
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 2007
Actual
62
FY 2007
Target
61
FY 2008
Target
64
FY 2009
Target
67
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
254
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of point
source nitrogen
reduction goal of
49.9 million pounds
achieved.
FY 2007
Actual
69
FY 2007
Target
70
FY 2008
Target
74
FY 2009
Target
79
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
Measure
Type
Outcome
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 2007
Actual
46
FY 2007
Target
47
FY 2008
Target
50
FY 2009
Target
53
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of forest
buffer planting goal
of 10,000 miles
achieved.
FY 2007
Actual
53
FY 2007
Target
53
FY 2008
Target
60
FY 2009
Target
68
Units
Percent Goal
Achieved
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$104.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
• (-$1,631.0) This total is the net of the 1.56% rescission and the discontinuation of
funding added in the FY 2008 Omnibus for the Small Watershed Grants Program.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
255
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$23,522.7
$23,522.7
52.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$21,757.0
$21,757.0
58.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$21,686.0
$21,686.0
58.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$22,261.0
$22,261.0
58.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$575.0
$575.0
0.0
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 2 nations, 8 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).25
• Performs demonstrations and investigations related to contaminated sediments in Great
Lakes rivers and harbors.
• Protects and restores habitat to decrease the loss of high quality ecological communities
and rare species, and to increase ecosystem conditions and functions to sustain native
plants and animals in habitat of the necessary size, mixture, and quality.
• Addresses invasive species, though collaboration with partners, by emphasizing
prevention of additional introductions.
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.
256
-------
(See http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/ for more information.)
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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 core water protection programs. EPA will give
priority to working with states and local communities to support removal of beneficial use
impairments in Areas of Concern (AOCs) and clean-up and de-listing of 8 AOCs by 2011. 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 to reduce 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 from CY 2005 through CY 2007, EPA will focus on similar cooperative
monitoring efforts with Canada on Lake Ontario in CY 2008, and on Lake Erie in CY 2009. In
FY 2009, EPA plans to initiate nearshore chemical and biological monitoring of the 10,000 miles
of Great Lakes nearshore waters. EPA will thus collect better information related to the most
productive of the Great Lakes waters, intakes, outfalls, and beaches.
257
-------
PCBs (ppm)
Total PCBs in Great Lakes Top Predator
Year Sites
Lake Trout (Walleye in Lake Erie)
1991 - 2005
A nnnn
3 0000
2.5000
o nnnn
1 *innn
1.0000
n *innn
n nnnn
^
A
• 7T^
1"
Fish, Odd
Superior
Michigan
Huron
Erie
Ontario
A^ V
\ • * A A A
* - * -^ \.^^^-*^^ B _» A
IF " "* • A •
•— * *
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/l.27 EPA will continue 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.
With preliminary results from grants it issued in FY 2007, 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 healthy lake bottom). Their decline may portend adverse
affects on Great Lakes fish and fisheries.
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%200APP%20v7.pdf. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - Quality
Assurance Project Plan for Sample Collection Activities, Great Lakes National Program Office.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP_OAPP_082504.pdf Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes
National Program Office. EPA905-R-02-009. October 2002, Approved April 2003. http://www.epa.gov/ghipo/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/grtlakes/glindicators/index.html).
258
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Average annual
percentage decline
for the long-term
concentrations of
PCBs in whole lake
trout and walleye
samples.
FY 2007
Actual
6
FY 2007
Target
5
FY 2008
Target
5
FY 2009
Target
5
Units
Percent
Annual
Decrease
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Average annual
percentage decline
for the long-term
trend in
concentrations of
PCBs in the air in
the Great Lakes
Basin.
FY 2007
Actual
8
FY 2007
Target
7
FY 2008
Target
7
FY 2009
Target
7
Units
Percent
Annual
Decrease
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of
Beneficial Use
Impairments
removed within
Areas of Concern.
FY 2007
Actual
9
FY 2007
Target
No
Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2008
Target
16
FY 2009
Target
21
Units
Cum
Number
BUI
Removed
Each Great Lakes performance measure reflects the results of multiple EPA base programs and
the activities of other organizations working to improve Great Lakes environmental conditions.
Ecosystem improvement on a scale as large as the Great Lakes is likely to be reflected in time
periods greater than a year, consequently the overall Great Lakes ecosystem condition as
measured by a Great Lakes Index will not be reported until 2011. The score to be reported in FY
2011 for overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is expected to improve slightly from the
score reported in FY 2007.
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 at monitored sites, reflecting
modest continual improvement in Great Lakes health. Also, following long-term trends, average
concentrations of toxic chemicals (PCBs) in the air at monitored sites in the Great Lakes basin
are expected to continue to decline by 7 percent annually.
Forty-three AOCs have been identified: 26 located entirely within the United States; 12 located
wholly within Canada; and 5 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
259
-------
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. These renewed efforts will be assisted through annual targets for restoration of
beneficial use impairments and through a long term target for de-listing of AOCs.
The EPA Great Lakes Program received an "adequate" PART rating in 2007.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$386.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$189.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
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.
260
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$1,361.4
$1,361.4
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$467.0
$467.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$4,922.0
$4,922.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$467.0
$467.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($4,455.0)
($4,455.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA supports the protection and restoration of Long Island Sound through its Long Island Sound
Office (LISO), established under Section 119 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended. EPA
assists the states in implementing the Sound's 1994 Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP), developed under Section 320 of the CWA. EPA and the states of
Connecticut and New York work in partnership with regional water pollution control agencies,
scientific researchers, user groups, environmental organizations, industry, and other interested
organizations and individuals to restore and protect the Sound and its critical ecosystems.
The CCMP identified six critical environmental problem areas that require sustained and
coordinated action to address: the effects of hypoxia on the ecosystem, including living marine
resources and commercially valuable species (e.g., American lobster); the impacts of toxic
contamination in the food web and on living resources; pathogen contamination and 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, its human population and
public access to its resources. 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 innovative
and nationally-recognized pollution trading programs. In 2006, the states surpassed the Total
Maximum Daily Load nitrogen discharge target of 42,171 trade-equalized (TE) Ibs/day,
discharging only 41,228 TElbs/day, a savings of 943 pounds of nitrogen per day or 172 tons
annually from entering the Sound. In 2007, the states restored or protected more than 197 acres
of critical coastal habitat, and reopened more than 22 miles of river corridors to anadromous fish
passage through construction of fishways or removal of barriers to fish passage, surpassing
annual targets for these areas of 50 acres and 8.3 miles, respectively.
(See http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net and http://www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis for further
information.)
261
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to oversee implementation of the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) CCMP in
2009 by coordinating the cleanup and restoration actions of the LISS Management Conference as
authorized under Sections 119 and 320 of the CWA. EPA's FY 2009 efforts will focus on the
following:
• Continued emphasis on reducing nitrogen loads from point and nonpoint sources of
pollution, which 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. LISO will work with the states of New York and Connecticut to implement the
nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load approved by EPA in April 2001.
• Coordinating priority watershed protection programs through the Long Island Sound
Management Conference partners to ensure that efforts are directed toward priority river
and stream reaches that affect Long Island Sound. 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.
• Year-round and intensive seasonal monitoring of water quality, including environmental
indicators such as dissolved oxygen levels, temperature, salinity, and water clarity, and
biological indicators such as chlorophyll a. This monitoring will assist Management
Conference partners in assessing environmental conditions that may contribute to
impaired water quality and in developing strategies to address impairments.
• Protecting and restoring critical coastal habitats that 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.
• 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 the Sound's resources.
• Coordinating the Long Island Sound Science and Technical Advisory Committee in
conducting focused scientific research into the causes and effects of pollution on the
Sound's living marine resources, ecosystems, water quality and human uses to assist
managers and public decision-makers in developing policies and strategies to address
environmental, social, and human health impacts.
• Coordinating the Long Island Sound Citizens Advisory Committee to develop an
educated population that is aware of significant environmental problems and understands
the management approach to, and their role in, correcting problems.
As one of 28 National Estuaries, this program was included in OMB's PART assessment under
Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary Protection, completed in 2005 and was rated "adequate."
262
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce point source
nitrogen discharges
to Long Island
Sound as measured
by the Long Island
Sound Nitrogen
Total Maximum
Daily Load
(TMDL).
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
37,323
FY 2009
Target
34,898
Units
Trade Eq
Lbs/Day
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Restore or protect
acres of coastal
habitat, including
tidal wetlands,
dunes, riparian
buffers, and
freshwater wetlands.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
862
FY 2009
Target
912
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reopen miles of
river and stream
corridor to
anadromous fish
passage through
removal of dams
and barriers or
installation of by-
pass structures such
as fishways.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
105.9
FY 2009
Target
114
Units
Miles
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$4,455.0) This total is the net of the 1.56% rescission and reduces congressionally
directed funding in the FY 2008 Omnibus for the Long Island Sound. This will return
support for implementation of the Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan, including addressing high nutrient loadings and protection and
restoration of coastal habitats, to the baseline level.
Statutory Authority:
Long Island Sound Restoration Act, P.L. 106-457 as amended by P.L. 109-137; 33 U.S.C. 1269.
263
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$4,407.4
$4,407.4
11.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,457.0
$4,457.0
14.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,618.0
$5,618.0
14.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$4,578.0
$4,578.0
14.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,040.0)
($1,040.0)
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 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 has identified processes and financial authorities in order to leverage the
resources needed to support the Gulf of Mexico Governors' Action Plan,2S and building on the
success of this first Action Plan, the Alliance will expand the breadth and scope of Gulf of
Mexico regional activities with the release of a Five-Year Regional Collaboration Blueprint.
EPA supports this partnership's efforts to effectively address the complex and pressing issues
facing the Gulf of Mexico.
FY 2009 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 and resiliency. Activities of
the Gulf of Mexico Program and its partners include:
• Supporting efforts to achieve the FY 2009 target to restore 96 impaired segments in the
13 priority coastal areas to achieve water and habitat quality levels that meet state water
quality standards;
1 Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/gulf/files/files/GulfActionPlan Final.pdf.
264
-------
• Supporting projects with the goal of creating, restoring or protecting 20,600 acres of
important coastal and marine habitats in the Gulf of Mexico and addressing coastal
community resiliency;
• Supporting state and coastal community efforts to manage Harmful Algal Blooms
(HABs) by implementing an integrated bi-national early-warning system pilot project in
Veracruz, Mexico, to be operational in 2008 with a 36-month period of performance for
evaluation;
• Assisting the Gulf states in reducing contamination of seafood and local beaches through
efforts to establish effective microbial source tracking methods and technologies to
identify the sources of bacteria. This is imperative for developing best management
practices to control fecal contamination, protect recreational water users from waterborne
pathogens, and preserve the integrity of drinking source water supplies;
• 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;
• Establishing the Gulf States Alliance Monitoring Initiative as a model regional Coastal
Water Quality Monitoring Framework pilot;
• Supporting coastal nutrient criteria and standards development with a Gulf State pilot;
• Supporting efforts to reduce nutrient loadings to watersheds and reduce the size of the
hypoxic zone by identifying the top 100 nutrient-contributing watersheds in the
Mississippi River Basin and using the U.S. Geological Survey SPARROW (SPAtially
Referenced Regressions on Watershed attributes) model to indicate where the major
sources of nitrogen and phosphorus are located and where to target reduction efforts;
• Establishing public and private support for the development and deployment of the Gulf
Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers Rotational Educational Exhibits Initiative; and
• Fostering regional stewardship and awareness of Gulf coastal resources through annual
Gulf Guardian Awards; developing a Public Awareness Campaign; and projects
enhancing local capacity to reach underserved and underrepresented populations.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Restore water and
habitat quality to
meet water quality
standards in
impaired segments
in 13 priority coastal
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
64
FY 2009
Target
96
Units
Impaired
Segments
265
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
areas (cumulative
starting in FY 07).
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Restore, enhance, or
protect a cumulative
number of acres of
important coastal
and marine habitats.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
18,200
FY 2009
Target
20,600
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Improve the overall
health of coastal
waters of the Gulf of
Mexico on the
"good/fair/poor"
scale of the National
Coastal Condition
Report.
FY 2007
Actual
2.4
FY 2007
Target
2.4
FY 2008
Target
2.5
FY 2009
Target
2.5
Units
Scale
A major indication of improvement in the overall health of the entire Gulf of Mexico is the score
received in 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.
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 2007 was 20,500 square kilometers (7,900 square miles). The low oxygen waters
extended from near the Mississippi River across the Louisiana/Texas border towards Galveston.
The long-term average since mapping began in 1985 is 13,500 square kilometers (5,200 square
miles). The target by 2015 is to reduce the zone to less than 5,000 square kilometers.
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.
266
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$7.0) 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.
• (-$1,033.0) This total is the net of the 1.56% rescission and a reduction of
congressionally directed funding in the FY 2008 Omnibus for the Gulf of Mexico. The
additional FY 2008 resources will allow the Agency to complete implementation of the
Gulf of Mexico Governors' Action Plan Phase I priority issues addressing water quality.
The funds will allow the Agency to begin implementation of a Phase II five-year regional
action plan on an accelerated schedule.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
267
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$997.0
$997.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$934.0
$934.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,707.0
$2,707.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$934.0
$934.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,773.0)
($1,773.0)
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. EPA's
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.
http://www.lcbp.org, and
(See http://www.epa.gov/NE/eco/lakechamplain/index.html,
http://nh.water.usgs.gov/champlain feds/ for more information.)
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA works with state and local partners to protect and improve the Lake Champlain Basin's
water quality, fisheries, wetlands, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources. FY 2009 activities
include:
• Addressing high levels of phosphorous, which encourages algal blooms in parts of the
lake, by working to help implement the joint Vermont and New York Lake Champlain
TMDL to reduce phosphorus loads from all categories of sources (point, urban and
agricultural nonpoint);
• Preventing the introduction of an invasive form of Didymosphenia geminata into the
Lake Champlain basin from the neighboring Connecticut River watershed;
268
-------
• Monitoring the population of alewives, a recent invasive species affecting Lake
Champlain, as well as working to remove and/or prevent the entry or dispersal of this and
other invasive plants, fish, and invertebrates in the basin;
• Completing development and beginning implementation of an ecological report card
which tracks ecological status and restoration progress in the Lake Champlain Basin;
• Completing revisions to the Lake Champlain Basin Management Plan, including
commemorating the quadricentennial and incorporating recent developments and ongoing
work in the Basin;
• Implementing a revised long-term limnological monitoring program for Lake Champlain;
• Continuing work to understand the high seasonal concentrations of toxic cyanobacteria,
particularly microcystin, in the northern reaches of Lake Champlain by monitoring the
dynamics of its species composition, concentration, and toxicity levels; reporting on its
potential health impacts; and providing necessary information to the health departments
of New York and Vermont to close beaches, drinking water intakes, or take other actions
as necessary.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the Improve Water Quality on a Watershed Basis sub-
objective and the Restore and Protect Critical Ecosystems objective. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific program.
This program has not been reviewed under the PART process.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,773.0) This total is the net of the 1.56% rescission and reduces congressionally
directed funding in the FY 2008 Omnibus for the Lake Champlain Basin. This will
return support for implementation of the Lake Basin Plan, "Opportunities for Action,"
including monitoring and assessment, and addressing high nutrient levels and invasive
species to the baseline level.
Statutory Authority:
1909 The Boundary Waters Treaty; 1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes
and Lake Champlain Act; CWA; North American Wetlands Conservation Act; U.S.-Canada
Agreements; National Heritage Areas Act of 2006; Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
of 2000.
269
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$9,704.2
$9,704.2
5.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$8,575.0
$8,575.0
12.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$32,072.0
$32,072.0
12.4
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$7,715.0
$7,715.0
12.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($24,357.0)
($24,357.0)
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 geographic areas. 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. In FY 2009 EPA
will implement, coordinate and facilitate activities including the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404 Wetlands Protection Program, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program
(CERP), the 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 Forest Program supports interagency coordination, watershed assessment,
conservation, and restoration efforts across five states in the Pacific Northwest. Key elements of
the program include two collaborative, watershed-scale monitoring programs that help
characterize watershed conditions across 70 million acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) administered lands in the northwest. In addition to providing status and
trend information for aquatic and riparian habitats, the two monitoring programs help support
adaptive management and state water quality/watershed health programs.
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 Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) program 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 and funding to
approximately 50 communities to help them build partnerships and use collaborative processes to
270
-------
select and implement actions to improve community health and the environment. Much of the
risk reduction comes through the application of over 40 EPA voluntary programs designed to
address community concerns such as Diesel Retrofits, Brownfields, the National Estuary
Program, Design for the Environment, Environmental Justice Revitalization Projects, Tools for
Schools, and Regional Geographic Initiatives. The process funded by the CARE program assists
communities in tailoring the application of these and other programs to meet their specific
priority needs.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will protect and restore various communities and ecosystems impacted by
diffuse sources of pollution. These community-based approaches will decrease the cumulative
risk for geographic areas. In addition to the below activities, EPA will continue to focus on
coastal ecosystems in FY 2009.
South Florida
In conducting special initiatives and planning activities, EPA is investing $2.1 million in the
South Florida Program in FY 2009 for the following activities:
• 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 (to 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; Florida Bay Program
Management Committee; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and South Florida Urban
Initiative.
• Assist with development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for South Florida.
271
-------
• Assist with development of and tracking NPDES and other permits including discharge
limits that are consistent with state and Federal law, and Federal Court consent decrees.
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to focus on the strategic targets in the 2006-2011 Strategic that
address important environmental markers such as stony coral cover, health and functionality of
seagrass beds, water quality in the FKNMS, phosphorus levels throughout the Everglades
Protection Area, and effluent limits for all discharges, including storm water treatment areas.
Northwest Forest
Federal and state partners implement shared responsibilities for aquatic monitoring and
watershed assessment. Efforts include refinement and utilization of monitoring approaches and
modeling tools and increased integration of monitoring framework designs, monitoring
protocols, and watershed health indicators. In FY 2009, EPA will invest $1.1 million in the
Northwest Forest Program for the following activities:
• Complete on-the-ground stream reach and watershed condition/trend monitoring in 75 to
100 sub-watersheds in California, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Washington.
• Utilize remote sensing and GIS data layers to assess watershed conditions in over 1,000
watersheds in western Oregon and Washington, and in Northern California.
• Provide monitoring information to states to assist in CWA reporting and 303(d)-related
efforts.
• Utilize upslope analysis, in-channel assessments, emerging research, and decision support
models to inform management decisions and refine future monitoring efforts.
Lake Pontchartrain
The program will work to restore the ecological health of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. In FY
2009, EPA will invest $978 thousand in the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program for the following
activities:
• 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.
272
-------
CARE
With a FY 2009 investment of $2.4 million in the CARE Program, EPA will continue to provide
technical support for communities, help them use collaborative processes to select and
implement local actions, and award 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 problem-solving group of community
stakeholders. That group assesses the community's toxic exposure problems and priorities 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.
In FY 2009, the CARE Program will provide support to communities to help them understand
and improve their local environments and health by:
• Selecting and awarding assistance agreements to community partnerships to improve local
environments;
• Providing technical support and training to help CARE communities build partnerships,
improve their understanding of environmental risks from all sources, set priorities, and take
actions to reduce risks;
• Improving community access to EPA voluntary programs and helping communities utilize
these programs to reduce risks;
• Implementing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Centers for Disease Control's
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to improve support for communities by
coordinating the efforts of multiple Federal agencies working at the community level to
improve environmental health; and
• Conducting outreach to share lessons learned by CARE communities and encouraging other
communities to build partnerships and take actions to reduce risks.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent 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 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
72
FY 2009
Target
72
Units
Percent
Population
273
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of days of
the beach season
that beaches in each
of the U.S. Pacific
Island Territories
monitored under the
Beach Safety
Program will be
open and safe for
swimming.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
70
FY 2009
Target
86
Units
Percent Days
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of the time
that 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 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
67
FY 2009
Target
64
Units
Percent Time
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Achieve "no net
loss" of stony coral
cover in FL Keys
Nat'l Marine
Sanctuary (FKNMS)
and in the coastal
waters of Dade,
Broward, and Palm
Beach Counties, FL
working with all
stakeholders.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
6.8/5.9
FY 2009
Target
No Net
Loss
Units
Mean Percent
Area
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Maintain the overall
water quality of the
near shore and
coastal waters of the
Florida Keys Nat'l
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Maintain
FY 2009
Target
Maintain
Units
Sea Grass
Health
274
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
Marine Sanctuary
(FKNMS).
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Improve the water
quality of the
Everglades
ecosystem as
measured by total
phosphorus,
including meeting
the lOppb total
phosphorus criterion
throughout the
Everglades
Protection Area
marsh.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
Maintain
FY 2009
Target
Maintain
Units
Parts per
Billion
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$56.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$946.0) This reduction to the CARE program will decrease the number of grants from
approximately 20 to approximately 12. The decrease will target Level I grants to ensure
that funds are available for the existing CARE communities eligible for the larger Level
II grants to reduce risks at the community level.
• (-$4,922.0) This reduces congressionally directed funding in the FY 2008 Omnibus for
the San Francisco Bay.
• (-$18,688.0) This reduces congressionally directed funding in the FY 2008 Omnibus for
Puget Sound activities.
• (+$143.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
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; Water Resources Development Act of 2000; RCRA; CERCLA; Economy Act of 1932;
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act; CAA; SWDA; TSCA.
275
-------
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Program Area: Geographic Programs
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$6,302.5
$6,302.5
14.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,553.0
$9,553.0
17.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$4,844.0
$4,844.0
17.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$4,844.0
$4,844.0
17.3
Program Project Description:
EPA uses 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 solutions to complex
environmental problems. RGI is one of EPA's premiere innovation resources — spurring local
projects that have often become national models. Examples are school bus diesel retrofits,
watershed planning, and developing agricultural pollution prevention performance standards for
pest management.
RGI projects are chosen based on national criteria that support EPA's goals and priorities. These
criteria state that RGI projects: address places, sectors or innovative projects; are based on a
regional, state, tribal or other strategic plan; address problems that are multi-media in nature; fill
a critical gap in the protection of human health and the environment; demonstrate state, local
and/or other stakeholder participation; and/or identify opportunities for leveraging other sources
of funding. Each Region administers RGI funds and has the discretion to set Regional specific
criteria in addition to the national criteria. If the regional offices decide to apply additional
criteria they are related to Regional, state, and/or local priorities or initiatives. RGI funds
support Regional priorities through contracts, grants, inter-agency agreements, and cooperative
agreements.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA Regional Offices plan to support projects and initiatives that align with Goal 4
Healthy Communities and Ecosystem while achieving Regional specific strategic
priorities/goals. The following is a snapshot of RGI projects planned:
• Promote collaborations and environmental stewardship to support national programs and
initiatives. The New Jersey Passaic River is considered one of the most degraded rivers
in the U.S. and is experiencing considerable population growth and development,
276
-------
resulting in significant loss of floodplains, fish spawning habitat, benthic habitat,
wetlands, and other valuable aquatic and terrestrial habitats. EPA, the Army Corps of
Engineers, NOAA, US F&WS and the State of New Jersey are developing a
comprehensive watershed-based plan to clean up contamination in the river, improve
water quality, and restore the ecological health of the watershed. In FY 2009, Region 2
will use RGI funds to support this effort and leverage state and other federal funding for
education and outreach to foster public environmental stewardship; for local habitat
restoration projects; and to promote the application of sustainable tools and programs
within the watershed.
• Incorporate multi-media approaches to environmental issues. Three quarters of
California's dairy cows are in the San Joaquin Valley where they contribute greatly to
some of the worst water and air pollution in the country. Past RGI projects supporting
the Collaborative leveraged over $16 million seeking to manage manure to improve the
quality of soil, manage nutrients and provide renewable energy, while developing
technologies that reduce emissions of pollutants to air and water. In FY 2009, Region 9
will use RGI funding to pilot projects that combine multiple treatment processes such as
energy production, dentrification and composting; reduce emissions of priority pollutants
from dairies; excess nutrients and salts in water, and Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) and ammonia that are precursors to formation of ground-level ozone and
particulate matter.
• Support emerging environmental issues. Region 5 will focus FY 2009 RGI funding on
critical Homeland Security functions and will work with states to implement: (a) the
Heartland Emergency Response Exchange (HERE) to enable the rapid, accurate and
secure exchange of critical data for emergency planners and emergency responders to
natural and man-made disasters. This will increase data availability and compatibility
between EPA and its states across organizational lines and, (b) the Disaster Debris
Recovery Network to ensure that each state has the capability to safely manage post-
disaster waste disposal and increase recovery and recycling of debris. RGI funds will
assist with planning and preparation for the management of debris. Key outputs will
include: databases and maps of debris facilities and debris management contractors;
preparing debris management contractors to effectively work with incident management
teams and, providing assistance to states and tribes so that they can help local
communities prepare debris management plans.
• Plan to fill critical gaps. Region 8 will use RGI to fund FY 2009 projects for: 1) mercury
deposition studies to understand the fate and transport of mercury and its effect on
aquatic resources and wildlife. The focus will be on a project in the Great Salt Lake as a
key step to identify ecosystem protection measures, and regain full use of aquatic and
wildlife resources dependent upon the lake; and 2) understanding the environmental
impact of emerging energy technologies important to our nation's energy future. The
Region plans to use funds to develop scientific information to support EPA's permitting
decisions involving a new technology for uranium extraction. There is a national need for
information on this technology as nuclear energy is expanding as part of our energy
portfolio.
277
-------
• Provide seed funding and leverage federal, state, public and private dollars that help
accelerate the pace of environmental and public health protection. Region 1 will use RGI
funds to support the Healthy Communities Grant Program, assisting communities to
reduce environmental risks, protect and improve human health, and improve the quality
of life in New England. Region 1 plans to fund projects that must: (1) Be located in
and/or directly benefit one or more of four Target Investment Areas [Environmental
Justice Areas of Potential Concern, Sensitive Populations (e.g. children, elderly, tribes
and/or others at increased risk), Places with High Risk from Toxic Air Pollution, and/or
Urban Areas (population of 35,000 or more)]; and (2) Identify measurable environmental
and/or public health results in one or more Target Program Areas (Asthma, Capacity-
Building on Environment and Public Health Issues, Clean Energy, Healthy
Indoor/Outdoor Environments, Healthy Schools, Smart Growth, Urban Natural
Resources and Open/Green Space ). This approach ensures that RGI resources are
invested wisely, use competition, are well leveraged, and achieve measurable
environmental and public health results.
• Showcase innovative solutions. Region 7 plans to continue to support the satellite
Environmental Finance Center (EFC) which provides small rural communities enhanced
access to financial products and technical assistance in the area of sustainable
infrastructure. Continuing support for the satellite EFC will increase the number of
community systems that receive water that meets all applicable health-based drinking
water standards through effective treatment and source water protection. In FY 2009,
RGI money will support process improvements in the Region, including Kaizen process
improvement events with states modeled after the successful 2007 Water Quality
Standards Kaizen event. This effort resulted in a vastly improved, streamlined process
with 48% fewer steps and improved working relationships between Region 7 and its
states.
• Support Regional specific priorities. Region 10's Strategic Endeavor addresses the
program "Clean, Affordable Energy and Climate Change;" important regional priorities
will use RGI to fund projects meeting one or more of the following objectives: 1)
promote the availability of renewable energy; 2) promote the efficient use of existing
energy sources; or 3) sequester carbon. Region 6 will use RGI funds to further regional
priorities and focus specific projects to: (a) fund a project with the City of Dallas to
reduce vehicle emissions and help the area attain air quality standards; (b) pilot new
strategies for cleaning up tire piles along the US/Mexican Border and reusing the waste
tires; and (c) host workshops to bring together local governments to expand water
conservation/efficiency measures. Region 3 will continue the Student Environmental
Development Program in the District of Columbia and Philadelphia, PA and in support of
the Administrator's initiative for the Minority Institutions Program; projects will be
developed and funded for Lincoln University, University of Maryland - Eastern Shore,
Hampton University, and Norfolk State University — all Historically Black Colleges and
Universities. Region 4 will use RGI funds that develop models and programs to address
local problems and regional priorities. RGI projects will focus on the following
anticipated results: 1) Strategic Agriculture: increase in growers using better waste
278
-------
management practices, reducing exposure to contaminants, and conserving energy; and 2)
Children's Health: reduction in chronic health disorders and reduced exposure to
environmental contaminants.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Objective 4.2: Communities. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,384.0 / +17.3 FTE) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all
FTE. Congress eliminated this program in FY 2008.
• (+$2,460.0) This increase reflects partial restoration of this program at a funding level
that recognizes the integration of Regional Geographic program efforts into other existing
Regional and state programs throughout the Agency. This total is net of the FY 2008
Omnibus 1.56% rescission.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; CAA; TSCA; CERCLA; SOW A; PPA; RCRA.
279
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
280
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$8,119.0
$300.0
$8,419.0
13.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,906.0
$0.0
$6,906.0
17.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,822.0
$0.0
$6,822.0
17.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$6,940.0
$0.0
$6,940.0
17.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$118.0
$0.0
$118.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program designs, develops, deploys, and maintains a secure and stable infrastructure to
support the Agency's critical communications and data-transfer demands in the event of a
national or local disaster. This infrastructure provides rapid access to communication tools,
accelerated transfers of data, models and maps to support response activities (e.g., plume models
and maps to determine the extent of contamination) and enhance staff access to all EPA data and
web resources. This program also supports a dispersed workforce in the event of a large-scale
catastrophic incident, a Continuity of Operations (COOP) Plan, or pandemic situation and
enables the upgrading and standardization of technology, with particular emphasis on the
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) infrastructure. This program also enables video contact
between localities, headquarters, Regional offices, and laboratories in emergency situations.
The Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs), the Homeland Security Strategy, and
use of an Agency-wide Homeland Security Collaborative Network (HSCN) support the
Agency's ability to effectively implement its broad range of homeland security responsibilities,
ensure consistent development and implementation of homeland security policies and
procedures, avoid duplication, and build a network of partners so that EPA's homeland security
efforts are integrated into 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 are managed in the
Information Security and IT/Data Management programs.
281
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will coordinate with the U.S. Intelligence Community, including the Office of the Director
for National Intelligence, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence
Agency, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of
Defense, and the White House Homeland Security Council. EPA will ensure that interagency
intelligence-related planning and operational requirements are met. EPA also will track
emerging national/homeland security issues in order to anticipate and avoid crisis situations and
target Agency efforts proactively against threats to the United States.
EPA's FY 2009 resources will support the Agency's rapid response infrastructure by delivering
increased network capacity and expanding the Agency's bandwidth functions (e.g., Voice over
IP) and other related IPv6 improvements. These capabilities will allow secure, reliable, and
high-speed data access and communication to first responders, on-scene coordinators, emergency
response teams, headquarters support teams, and investigators wherever they are located
(regardless of what jurisdiction they operate under) and also will 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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$69.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$500.0) This reduction reflects completion of work associated with the LAN-in-a-Box
initiative.
• (+$200.0) This increase supports the expansion of the emergency notification system
through the purchase of necessary IT equipment for essential personnel.
• (+$349.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
NCP; CERCLA; SOW A; CWA; CAA; Bio Terrorism Act; Homeland Security Act of 2002;
Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act (Title XIV of Public Law 104-201).
282
-------
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
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 2007
Actuals
59,555.5
$10,575.4
$1,637.2
$21,768.1
53.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$7,787.0
$25,586.0
$1,857.0
$35,230.0
59.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$7,665.0
$15,357.0
$1,828.0
$24,850.0
59.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$6,759.0
$27,131.0
$1,679.0
$35,569.0
49.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($906.0)
$11,774.0
($149.0)
$10,719.0
-10.0
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 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Water Security
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to build its capacity to identify and respond to threats to critical
national water 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
283
-------
assess their vulnerabilities to 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 the Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center (WaterlSAC) to provide
up-to-date security information for drinking water 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
all critical infrastructure sectors, including all utilities within the water sector. In FY 2009, more
than 11,000 distinct water sector organizations will receive notices and have access to
WaterlSAC designed to provide important and timely communication from the Federal
government to water sector affiliates. In addition, more than 500 drinking water and wastewater
utilities, representing 60% of the U.S. population, will rely on a secure and up-to-date web-based
environment to share and receive security sensitive information as subscribers to WaterlSAC.
The FY 2009 request level for WaterlSAC is $2.6 million.
Counterterrori sm
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to train all criminal investigators within the Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics and Training (OCEFT) in "Hot Zone Forensic Evidence Collection"
typically utilized at crime scenes involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) as well as
environmental crimes. The program will continue this multi-year effort to train and provide
these agents with the necessary specialized response skills and evidence collection equipment.
This will enable these agents to collect evidence and process a crime scene safely and effectively
in a contaminated environment (hot zone). A new element will be added to this training in FY
2009. Personnel trained under this program will be incorporated into the Agency's Response
Support Corps and will be utilized to supplement the Agency's critical infrastructure support
missions as outlined in the various Emergency Support Functions of the National Response
Framework (NRF).
Advanced crime scene processing training also will be provided to those criminal investigators
assigned to the National Counter Terrorism Evidence Response Team (NCERT). NCERT 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 also will supply the required support as described in the various Emergency Support
Functions (ESFs) of the National Response Plan (NRP) and National Response Framework
(NRF) during a national emergency. Additionally, EPA agents in the homeland security
program will provide more robust support, involving evidence collection, to the BioWatch,
Water Security Initiative, and RadNet programs.
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 emissions of toxic and/or harmful air pollutants as well as the
284
-------
development and improvements of multi-pollutant models to demonstrate effects of air threats to
air quality. For monitoring, EPA will continue the testing and improvement of monitoring
technologies and institutional infrastructure of the Federal, state and local ambient air monitoring
networks and capabilities. EPA will provide technical assistance, as necessary, to respond to or
be prepared for an air quality threat in the United States.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$79.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$540.0) This increase will fund specific skills trainings (e.g., ICS Group Supervisor,
damage assessment, sanitary survey, etc.), exercises focusing on water security, and
associated travel to support the Regions' emergency response duties as specified in DHS'
National Response Framework.
• (-$1,647.0 / -9.0 FTE) This redirection will consolidate FTE for the Protection Services
Detail with other Agency security resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations program. In light of current requirements, the Agency will be able to
continue to meet homeland security responsibilities for the enforcement program in FY
2009.
• (+$122.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
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.
285
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$3,394.3
$39,003.6
$50,318.1
$92,716.0
166.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,381.0
$40,768.0
$45,280.0
$89,429.0
167.6
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,329.0
$38,193.0
$44,629.0
$86,151.0
167.6
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$3,412.0
$46,210.0
$56,676.0
$106,298.0
174.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$83.0
$8,017.0
$12,047.0
$20,147.0
6.6
Program Project Description:
EPA plays a lead role in protecting U.S. citizens and the environment from the effects of attacks
that release chemical, biological, and radiological agents. EPA's Homeland Security Emergency
Preparedness and Response program develops and maintains an Agency-wide capability to
prepare for and respond to large-scale catastrophic incidents with emphasis on those that may
involve Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). EPA continues to increase the state of
preparedness for homeland security incidents. The response to chemicals is different from the
response to pests, but for both, the goals are to facilitate preparedness, safe response by first
responders, safe re-occupancy of buildings or other locations and to protect the production of
crops, livestock, and food in the U.S. In the case of chemicals, new information is needed to
assist emergency planners and first responders in assessing immediate hazards, while clean-up
methods are generally known due to long-standing chemical emergency preparedness work.
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will maintain the accelerated development of values for Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels (AEGLs), which emergency planners and first responders use to prepare for
and deal with chemical emergencies by determining safe exposure levels. Following September
11, 2001, the program was created to accelerate the development of proposed AEGL values,
which are put to use immediately. Commencing in FY 2009, the program will shift emphasis
towards elevating proposed AEGL values to Interim and ultimately Final status in conjunction
with the National Academies of Science. Accordingly, in FY 2009, the program plans to
develop proposed AEGL values for 18 additional chemicals, compared with 33 in FY 2007 and
23 in FY 2006, remaining on target to meet its long-term goal of developing proposed AEGL
286
-------
values for 287 chemicals by 2011. In addition, final values will be completed for at least six
additional chemicals in FY 2009. For more information, please visit www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Healthy Communities objective. A performance
measure tracking development of proposed AEGL values are included in the Chemical Risk
Review and Reduction program project. The AEGL program has consistently achieved or
exceeded its performance targets, reflecting significantly greater than expected progress in
developing proposed AEGL values due in part to unanticipated opportunities to develop values
for categories of similar chemicals. The program significantly exceeded its FY 2007 annual
performance target of 24 additional chemicals with proposed AEGL values by completing that
work for 33 chemicals, due in part to delays in FY 2006 pending resolution of issues surrounding
the use of data from human studies. Cumulative results demonstrate a total of 218 proposed
AEGLs completed indicating significant progress towards completing 287 chemicals by 2011.
For more information, please visit www.epa.gov/oppt.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$15.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$68.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
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.
287
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$6,219.1
$2,023.9
$10,372.2
$636.7
$19,251.9
2.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,345.0
$594.0
$7,870.0
$594.0
$15,403.0
3.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,248.0
$585.0
$7,747.0
$585.0
$15,165.0
3.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$6,415.0
$594.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,273.0
3.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$167.0
$9.0
$323.0
$609.0
$1,108.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This Homeland Security Program ensures the protection of EPA staff and physical buildings. It
is comprised of three distinct elements: (1) Physical Security - ensuring EPA's physical
structures and critical assets are secure and operational with adequate security procedures in
place to safeguard staff in the event of an emergency; (2) Personnel Security - initiating and
adjudicating personnel security investigations; and (3) National Security Information -
classifying and safeguarding sensitive mission critical data.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Agency will focus on meeting the mandates contained in Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12). HSPD-12 requires Federal Agencies to issue secure and
reliable identification to all employees and contractors. Federal Information Processing
Standard (FIPS) 201-1, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and
Contractors, issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), establishes
the technical specifications for the smart cards that respond to this requirement. Additionally,
EPA will continue its physical security activities on a regular basis, including conducting
security vulnerability assessments and mitigation at EPA's facilities nationwide.
Personnel security will play a major role in the Agency's new EPA Personnel Access Security
System (EPASS) deployment. Concurrent with new EPASS responsibilities, the personnel
security program will continue to perform position risk designations; prescreen prospective new
288
-------
hires; process national security clearances; and maintain personnel security files and information
on more than 26,000 employees and select non-Federal workers.
Regarding National security information, FY 2009 activities will include classifying,
declassifying, and safeguarding classified information; identifying and marking of classified
information; education, training, and outreach; audits and self inspections; and certification and
accreditation of Secure Access Facilities (SAFs) and Sensitive Compartmented Information
Facilities (SCIFs).
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$27.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$140.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
The National Security Strategy; Homeland Security Presidential Directives 3, 7, and 12;
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004; Executive Orders 10450, 12958, and
12968; Title V CFR Parts 731 and 732.
289
-------
Program Area: Indoor Air
290
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$5,201.2
$434.1
$5,635.3
37.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,429.0
$428.0
$5,857.0
39.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,363.0
$422.0
$5,785.0
39.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$5,488.0
$441.0
$5,929.0
39.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$125.0
$19.0
$144.0
-0.5
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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 increase risk
reduction;
• Continue partnerships that will make radon risk reduction a normal part of doing business in
the marketplace; and
• Expand scientific knowledge and technologies to support and drive aggressive action on
radon in conjunction with partners.
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to promote public action to test homes for indoor radon. Where
levels are above the action level, the Agency will continue to: a) encourage builders to construct
new homes with radon-resistant features in areas where there is elevated radon and b) encourage
radon action during real estate transactions.
291
-------
EPA also will continue its work with national partners to inform and motivate public action. The
outreach will include risk estimates from the National Academy of Sciences that demonstrate
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
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.
The majority of Federal resources directed to radon risk reduction are allotted to states under the
State Indoor Radon Grants program. EPA strategically employs its programmatic resources to
underwrite its national leadership of the Federal/state/private coalition attacking national radon
risk. EPA targets its efforts to public outreach and education activities designed to increase the
public-health effectiveness of state and private efforts. This includes support for national public
information campaigns that attract millions of dollars in donated air time, identification and
dissemination of "best practices" from the highest achieving states for transfer across the nation,
public support for local and state adoption of radon prevention standards in building codes,
coordination of national voluntary standards (e.g., mitigation and construction protocols) for
adoption by states and the radon industry, and numerous other activities strategically selected to
promote individual action to test and mitigate homes and promote radon-resistant new
construction.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of additional
homes (new and
existing) with radon
reducing features
FY 2007
Actual
late 2008
FY 2007
Target
190,000
FY 2008
Target
225,000
FY 2009
Target
265,000
Units
Homes
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Total Cost (public and
private) per future
premature cancer
death prevented
through lowered
radon exposure.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Establis
hed
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Establis
hed
FY 2009
Target
415,000
Units
Dollars
Program goals are the result of the total funding the program area receives through EPM, S&T,
and State Indoor Radon Grant (SIRG) funding.
292
-------
In FY 2009, EPA's goal is to add 265,000 homes with 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 prevent approximately 875 future premature cancer deaths
(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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$111.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$14.0) This reflects an increase for IT and telecommunications resources.
• (-0.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
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.
293
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$21,425.6
$791.2
$22,216.8
64.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$21,440.0
$788.0
$22,228.0
68.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$21,632.0
$777.0
$22,409.0
68.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$19,180.0
$790.0
$19,970.0
63.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($2,452.0)
$13.0
($2,439.0)
-4.5
Program Project Description:
In this non-regulatory, voluntary program, EPA works through 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. Air inside homes, schools, and
workplaces can be more polluted than outdoor air in the largest and most industrialized cities.
(U.S. EPA. 1987. The Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) Study: Summary and
Analysis Volume I. EPA 600-6-87-002a. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.)
People typically spend close to 90 percent of their time indoors and may be more at risk from
indoor than outdoor air pollution. (U.S. EPA. 1989. Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality,
Volume II: Assessment and Control of Indoor Air Pollution. EPA 40-6-89-001C. Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.)
Additionally, EPA uses technology transfer to improve the design, operation, and maintenance of
buildings - including schools, homes, and workplaces - to promote healthier indoor air. EPA
provides technical assistance that directly supports state, local governments and public health
organizations.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to promote community adoption of comprehensive asthma-care
programs that emphasize management of environmental asthma triggers, such as environmental
tobacco smoke, dust mites, mold, pet dander, cockroaches and other pests, and nitrogen dioxide.
Working principally with Federal and non-profit partners, and continue to reach populations
disproportionately impacted by asthma and environmental tobacco smoke.
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.
294
-------
EPA will continue to work with the health care provider community to integrate environmental
asthma management into the standards of care for asthma.
Through its remaining partnership agreements, EPA will continue 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)29 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 indoor air quality (IAQ)
in schools.
EPA also will promote 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
maintenance practices for indoor environmental quality and energy efficiency, due to ongoing
increased growth in allergy rates.
Internationally, EPA will continue to work to provide technology transfer to developing
countries so that individuals and organizations within those countries have the tools to address
human health risk due to indoor smoke from cooking fires. Since 2003, the indoor air program
has helped 1.4 million households across the globe—an estimated 8 million people—adopt clean
and efficient cooking technologies.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Average cost to EPA
per student per year
in a school that is
implementing an
Indoor Air Quality
plan.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2009
Target
1.40
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 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
1100
FY 2008
Target
1100
FY 2009
Target
1000
Units
Number
www.epa. gov/iaq/schooldesign last accessed 7/23/2007.
295
-------
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 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2009
Target
3.90
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Additional health
care professionals
trained annually by
EPA and its partner
on the
environmental
management of
asthma triggers.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
2000
FY 2008
Target
2000
FY 2009
Target
2000
Units
Number
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of public
that is aware of the
asthma program's
media campaign.
FY 2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
>20
FY 2008
Target
>20
FY 2009
Target
>20
Units
Percen-
tage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Total number of
schools
implementing an
effective indoor air
quality plan.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2009
Target
37,000
Units
Number
EPA will continue to work under its long term 2012 goal to have 6.5 million people with asthma
take the essential actions to reduce their exposure to environmental triggers. EPA's goal has
been to motivate close to 400,000 additional people with asthma to take these actions in 2009,
bringing the total number to approximately 5.3 million people with asthma taking these actions.
EPA will work at a more measured pace to reduce existing disparities between
disproportionately impacted populations and the overall population. EPA will also continue to
work toward its long term 2012 goal that 40,000 primary and secondary schools (35% of
schools) will be implementing effective indoor air quality management programs consistent with
EPA guidance.
The Indoor Air program, rated by OMB as "moderately effective" during a 2005 PART
296
-------
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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,086.07 -4.5 FTE) This decrease reflects a shift away from activities in the asthma
program such as incorporating management of environmental triggers into national
clinical practice and standards of care for health plans and health care providers as well
as training and education of asthma care providers on the environmental management of
these triggers. EPA will focus its efforts more narrowly to reach populations
disproportionally impacted by asthma and environmental tobacco smoke.
• (-$366.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on the recalculation of base workforce
costs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA Amendments of 1990; Title IV of the SARA of 1986.
297
-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
298
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$4,968.5
$4,968.5
12.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,203.0
$6,203.0
13.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,144.0
$6,144.0
11.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$6,309.0
$6,309.0
13.9
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$165.0
$165.0
2.0
Program Project Description:
The Child and Aging Health Protection program 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 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.30
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Agency will fund the Office of Children's Health Protection at $6,309 thousand
with 13.9 FTE under this program. The Office of Environmental Education has been eliminated
with no funding given in FY 2009. The Child and Aging Health Protection program will 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 with states, Tribes, and local governments to effectively incorporate environmental
health considerations of children and older adults into new or existing programs; and will ensure
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 implement the Guide to Considering Children's
Health When Developing EPA Actions and assist in assessing children's health risks as
30
Please refer to: http://vosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/homepage.htm.
299
-------
part of EPA's rule making activities 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.
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. Support the Healthy
Schools Environmental Health Assessment Tool.
• 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. EPA also helps provide health professionals and
the public with consultation, education, and referral services through its support for
Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units.
• Support the Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances program's implementation of a
comprehensive program to address hazards created by renovating, repairing, and painting
homes that have lead-based paint, and a final regulation to address lead-safe work
practices for renovation, repair, and painting activities.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Objective 4.2: Communities. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$340.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$100.0) This change reflects a reduction in contract support for the Children's Health
Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) through more efficient use of technology.
• (-$38.0) The Agency is not funding the increase directed by Congress for this program
restoration in FY 2008.
• (-$37.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
• (+2.0 FTE) Congress requested that the Agency provide staff and funding and reflects
consolidation of the Environmental Education activities with the Children's' office in FY
2008. This change represents the return of FTEs that were supplied for this program as a
300
-------
consequence of the Congressional request. The Agency is not requesting funding in FY
2009 for the Environmental Education Division within the Office of the Administrator.
Statutory Authority:
Executive Order 13045.
301
-------
Environmental Education
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Achieve Environmental Protection through Improved Compliance; Improve
Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$7,807.2
$7,807.2
16.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$8,860.0
$8,860.0
19.6
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($8,860.0)
($8,860.0)
-19.6
Program Project Description:
The Environmental Education Program provides leadership resources to educational
organizations at the local, state, and national levels to enable them to conduct educational
initiatives concerning protection of the environment. The primary audience is composed of
teachers, students, and non-formal educators in parks, zoos, and museums. Environmental
education projects use sound science to educate our citizens about the need for responsible
stewardship to preserve and protect the environment.31
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA believes that environmental education is an integral part of all its programs. This, when
coupled with the fact that many states, local governments and private organizations have
developed their own environmental education programs, supports the elimination of funding for
this particular program project.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Output
Measure
Percent of all students and teachers
reached demonstrate increased
environmental knowledge, as
measured by the Guidelines for
Learning for K-12, developed by the
North American Association for
Environmental Education.
Number of states adopting or
aligning Guidelines for Learning
FY 2007
Target
FY 2007
Actual
Data not yet
available
Data not yet
available
FY 2008
Target
Baseline data due
in FY08
Baseline data due
in FY08
31
For more information, please see www.epa.gov/enviroed
302
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Efficiency
Measure
curricula and standards to state
academic standards or number of
states developing new
environmental education standards
based on Guidelines for Learning.
Percent of college students who
pursue environmental careers after
receipt of NNEMS fellowship from
EPA.
Ratio of number of students/teachers
that have improved environmental
knowledge per total dollars
expended.
FY 2007
Target
25
FY 2007
Actual
Data not yet
available
Data not yet
available
FY 2008
Target
To be determined
Baseline data due
in FY08
The Environmental Education program has received a "Results Not Demonstrated" rating. The
program is now collecting baseline performance data for the measures noted below and
anticipates reporting the initial results on the National Network for Environmental Management
Studies (NNEMS) measure in calendar year 2008.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$8,860.0) This change represents the elimination of all funding for this program.
• (-19.6 FTE) Congress directed the Agency to provide staff and funding for
Environmental Education in FY 2008. The Agency is not requesting funding in FY 2009
for Environmental Education. The FTE diverted for this are being returned to the
programs where they were: Congressional, Intergovernmental, and External Relations
program (+13.6 FTE); the Small Business Ombudsman program (+2.0 FTE); the Small
Minority Business Assistance program (+2.0 FTE); and the Children's and other
Sensitive Populations program (+2.0 FTE).
Statutory Authority:
National Environmental Education Act (PL 101-619).
303
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$49,193.3
$137.5
$49,330.8
375.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$49,747.0
$155.0
$49,902.0
379.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$48,971.0
$154.0
$49,125.0
365.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$49, 756.0
$0.0
$49,756.0
372.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$785.0
($154.0)
$631.0
6.9
Program Project Description:
The Congressional, Intergovernmental and External Relations program furnishes the resources
for those headquarters and Regional offices that provide the vision, leadership, and support
needed to enable EPA to meet its commitments to protect human health and the environment.
This program provides the resources for the offices of the Regional Administrators as well as
Regional Congressional and Legislative Support and Public Affairs. EPA's Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations function provides resources to respond to Congressional requests
for information and provide written and oral testimony, briefings, and briefing materials. The
Office provides national support to the Regional Geographic Initiatives Program and the
Regional Science and Technology Program.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations will be funded at
$7,192 thousand with 56.8 FTE. This Office develops legislative strategies to support program
Offices and coordinates the Agency's appearances before Congress. EPA must work effectively
with states, local, and Tribal governments, and other external constituencies, to ensure that their
interests and concerns are considered in Agency policies, guidance, and regulations. In FY 2009,
the Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM) under this program will be
funded at $1,987 thousand with 11.1 FTE. This office provides resources to develop and manage
Agency-wide FACA policy and guidance. OCEM also has direct management responsibility for
four FACA committees.
EPA will continue to ensure that its Federal advisory committees comply with requirements and
administrative guidelines provided by the General Services Administration's Committee
Management Secretariat. Key activities include:
304
-------
• Ensuring that EPA's Federal advisory committees comply with FACA requirements
through a comprehensive committee management and review process.
• Providing EPA Regional managers with tools and opportunities to determine regional
FACA priorities; better utilize existing EPA committees; and explore options for new
committees and subcommittees.
• EPA also will ensure that all new or renewed FACA Charters include preliminary
performance measures, and report results associated with the Agency's committee
management process.
Further, in order to help EPA build a more positive and proactive relationship with the
agricultural industry, and to build partnerships to find better, more efficient ways to protect
human health and the environment, the Agency will launch a Farm, Ranch, and Rural
Communities FACA. This committee will provide advice and recommendations to the
Administrator on critical environmental issues involving agriculture.
The Immediate Office of the Administrator is funded at $5,037 thousand and 34.8 FTE. This
office within the Congressional, Intergovernmental and External Relations program supports the
achievement of the Agency's strategic goals by communicating Agency proposals, actions,
policy, data, research, and information through mass media, print publications, and directly via
the Web.
The Office of Public Affairs will review and consolidate web content to provide the public with
easily accessible, high quality, timely, coherent, and comprehensive information on the Agency's
activities and policies. The Office will 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 Public
Affairs will be funded at $5,712 thousand with 44.8 FTE under this program. The Office of
Public Affairs informs the general public, state, local and Tribal governments about
environmental problems and goals, and works to strengthen communications with state, local and
Tribal governments and organizations, news media, and the public. The Office also works to
increase public awareness and enhance public perceptions of environmental issues, as well as
their social, technological and scientific solutions.
The Office of Executive Services will align and maximize the effective utilization of resources
within the Office of the Administrator through workforce and succession planning, addressing
staffing needs, conducting workload and budget projections and providing developmental
opportunities. In FY 2009 the Office of Executive Services (OES) will be funded at $3,266
thousand with 24 FTE. OES serves as the central management arm of the Office of the
Administrator. This office provides up-to-date knowledge, tools, and practices for effective
management of administration, human resources, budget and financial management, and
information technology.
305
-------
The Office of the Executive Secretariat (OEX) will be funded at $1,750 thousand with 13.6 FTE.
This office manages the Administrator's and Deputy Administrator's correspondence and
records, including identification and maintenance of vital records.
The Office of the Executive Secretariat supports the Agency's strategic goals by:
(a) Managing the Agency's correspondence tracking and workflow management database;
(b) Providing records management support, training, and guidance for the Administrator's
staff offices; and
(c) Managing all aspects of the Administrator's and Deputy Administrator's non-
Congressional correspondence and records management, including identification and
maintenance of vital records.
The Regional Administrators and their staff also provide leadership to the Regional offices and
states they serve. The Congressional, Intergovernmental and External Relations programs:
• Lead and support the Administration's efforts to pass legislation to protect human health
and the environment and implement recently passed legislation.
• 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.
• Build a stronger EPA partnership with local governments and coordinates 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 National
Environmental Performance Partnerships System (NEPPS) framework and principles into
the Agency's core business practices. Key activities include:
(a) Leading an Agency-wide performance management initiative to streamline state
reporting burden;
(b) Implementing the OMB-directed State Grants Performance Measures Template;
(c) Leading a Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) initiative to encourage broader
application of PPG programmatic flexibility by the states; and
(d) Working with states to develop a longer term strategic plan for the future
direction of the state-EPA partnership.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,755.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
306
-------
• (-$695.0 / -5.7 FTE) EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
proposes to reorganize its Office of Planning, Policy Analysis and Communications, and
reassign staff to other OECA offices. Four of these FTE will transfer to the policy and
legislative functions: coordinating and developing cross-cutting polices and
Congressional Testimony for non budget issues; reviewing prospective Performance
Track incentives, acting as liaison with the Agency's Congressional Office; and
developing legislative activities reports.
• (+$110.0 / +2.0 FTE) This increase provides the workforce and contract and expenses
funding necessary to support the Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities FACA.
• (-3.4 FTE) This decrease represents anticipated savings accomplished through more
efficient management and administrative practices, as well as IT and communications
changes that will encourage more economically efficient resource utilization.
• (-$1,180.0) This decrease represents anticipated savings accomplished through more
efficient management and administrative practices, as well as IT and communications
changes that will encourage more economically efficient resource utilization.
• (+$10.0) This increase provides additional resources for the Administrator's
representational fund. The increase from $9 thousand to $19 thousand will allow EPA to
host the Commission for Environmental Cooperation's annual meeting in FY2009. EPA
hosts the meeting once every three years.
• (+13.6 FTE) Congress directed the Agency to provide staff and funding for
Environmental Education in FY 2008. This change represents the return of FTEs that
were diverted from this program for that purpose.
• (-$215.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
As provided in Appropriations Act funding; FACA; EAIA; NAFTA Implementation Act;
RLBPHRA; NAAED; LPA-US/MX-BR; CERCLA.
307
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$17,541.7
$1,374.2
$18,915.9
30.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,364.0
$1,433.0
$16,797.0
24.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$15,137.0
$1,411.0
$16,548.0
24.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$18,058.0
$1,433.0
$19,491.0
24.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,921.0
$22.0
$2,943.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program supports the development and maintenance of the National Environmental
Information Exchange Network (the Exchange Network). The Exchange Network is an
integrated information network using standardized data formats and definitions to facilitate
information sharing among EPA and its partners across the Internet. 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 and data exchanges with our partners. This program creates a
reliable, secure internet-based approach to exchanging environmental information between
trusted partners. As a result, the Exchange Network encourages the development and use of
environmental data standards, fosters the adoption of needed authentication and electronic
signature approaches and strengthens the partnerships crucial to exchange of environmental
information among federal entities, states, tribes and other consortia involved in environmental
stewardship activities.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the major focus of work is on creating national infrastructure, developing new
applications for use, and establishing standards, schemas and templates which support
environmental data flows. These activities build on efforts started in FY 2004 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 CDX.
After 2007, all 50 states, one territory, and seven tribes will have nodes on the Exchange Network
and will be using it to send data to EPA and share data with other partners. In FY 2009, EPA,
308
-------
states, as well as more tribes and territories, will continue to re-engineer data systems so
information that was previously not available, or not easily available, can be transferred via the
Exchange Network using common data standards and data formats called schemas. These efforts
will be closely coordinated with the Agency's program offices and the Agency's system of data
registries. As data flows are added, the broader use of data standards (quality 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 data 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.
Another major activity for FY 2009 will be OEFs continuing stewardship of the Agency's
integration with the Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection's
Automated Commercial Environment/Integrated Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS). EPA has an
important role in the development of this system and in ensuring that imports coming into the
United States meet American health, environmental and safety standards, and in carrying out
effective enforcement against violators. Six major EPA programs across the offices of
Enforcement, Toxic Substances, Pesticides, Solid Waste, Transportation and Air Quality and
Atmospheric programs have a role. Requested resources will pay for design and development of
improved program office business processes and operations; upgraded EPA program office data
systems; upgrades to the Agency's Central Data Exchange which will serve as the hub for
program system data exchanges with ACE/ITDS; required legal, regulatory and policy analysis
and changes in EPA program offices; and, finally, for additional data standards development and
coordination with other Agencies necessary to ensure efficient import safety data exchanges
across the Federal government. Funding is centralized in this program project but will support
the linkage of individual programmatic data sources to ACE/ITDS.
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 2007
Actual
37
FY 2007
Target
36
FY 2008
Target
45
FY 2009
Target
60
Units
Systems
309
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of users
from states, tribes,
laboratories, and
others that choose
CDX to report
environmental data
electronically to
EPA.
FY 2007
Actual
88,516
FY 2007
Target
55,000
FY 2008
Target
100,000
FY 2009
Target
110,000
Units
Users
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$138.0) This change reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$3,100.0) This increase supports environmental information efforts in support of the
International Trade Data System (ITDS). The funding will support the development of
linkages between several EPA program offices participating in the ACE/ITDS program
and the integration effort with Customs and Border Protection.
• (-$600.0) This reduction will be offset by delaying planned enhancements to CDX.
• (+$283.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAA; CWA; ERD and DAA; TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; SOW A;
FFDCA; EPCRA; CERCLA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; CSA; Privacy Act
Electronic Freedom of Information Act.
310
-------
Small Business Ombudsman
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$3,761.9
$3,761.9
11.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,261.0
$3,261.0
12.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,210.0
$3,210.0
10.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$3,217.0
$3,217.0
12.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$7.0
$7.0
2.0
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.32 The Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization (OSDBU) partially utilizes the resources within the Small Business
Ombudsman program. OSDBU is funded at $1,903 thousand with 7 FTE.
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 EPA 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 supports
partners with 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.
The remaining resources are utilized by EPA's Office of Policy Economics and Innovation
(OPEI). OPEI is funded at $1,314 thousand with 7 FTE. This office assists with EPA's Sector
Strategies Program and assesses the effect of regulatory options on small businesses, and
proposes flexible, cost-effective solutions to environmental problems in areas such as spill
prevention, storm water, air emissions, and recycling of industrial materials. The program also
32 Please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/sbo/.
311
-------
quantifies the environmental impact of small business sectors to help EPA and other stakeholders
prioritize future activities, and works collaboratively with industry groups to create stewardship
programs and meaningful assistance and tools for priority areas.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
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
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 businesses 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.
EPA also will support and promote a state-lead multi-media small business initiative and
coordinate efforts within the Agency.
• Strengthen and support partnerships with state SBEAPs and trade associations, and
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 of key small business sectors by developing
flexible, cost-effective solutions to environmental issues through the Sector Strategies
Program.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Objective 5.2: Improve environmental Performance
through Pollution Prevention and Other Stewardship Practices. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$319.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (-$100.0) This decrease represents anticipated savings accomplished through improved
management and administrative practices that result in more efficient operations.
312
-------
• (-$212.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
combined with several small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs.
• (+2.0 FTE) Congress directed the Agency to provide staff and funding for Environmental
Education in FY 2008. This change represents the return of FTEs that were diverted
from this program for that purpose.
Statutory Authority:
CAA, section 507.
313
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$2,437.3
$2,437.3
9.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,466.0
$2,466.0
11.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,428.0
$2,428.0
9.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$2,411.0
$2,411.0
11.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($17.0)
($17.0)
2.0
Program Project Description:
This program is located in the Office of the Administrator, Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization (OSDBU). OSDBU fully utilizes the resources of this program and partially
utilizes the resources with the Small Business Ombudsman program. The Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization 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 human 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 both direct procurement acquisitions and indirect procurement
assistance.33
FY 2009 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 in FY 2009. This fair share may be received
either directly or indirectly through contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or interagency
agreements. EPA has a number of national goals that it negotiates with the Small Business
Administration (SBA) every 2 years.
33
Please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/osdbu/.
314
-------
In FY 2009, EPA's contract bundling reviews for an increasing number of Agency contracts
will: (1) eliminate unnecessary contract bundling, and (2) mitigate the effects of bundling on
America's small business community. Strong emphasis will be placed on implementing Section
811 of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, authorizing 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. The Agency will 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.
Under its Indirect Procurement Program, EPA has a statutory goal of 10 percent utilization of
Minority Business Enterprises/Worn en-Owned Business Enterprises for research conducted
under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, as well as a statutory 8 percent goal for all other
programs. The Small Minority Business Assistance program encourages the Agency to meet
these direct and indirect procurement goals. These efforts will enhance the ability of America's
small and disadvantaged businesses to help the Agency protect human health and the
environment and, at the same time, create more jobs. As a result of the Supreme Court's
decision in Adarand v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995), EPA will continue implementation of the
Agency's rule for the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in procurements
funded through EPA's assistance agreements.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$251.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (-$100.0) This decrease represents anticipated savings accomplished through improved
management and administrative practices that result in more efficient operations.
• (-$168.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
• (+2.0 FTE) Congress directed the Agency provide staff and funding in for Environmental
Education in FY 2008. This change represents the return of FTEs that were diverted
from this program for that purpose.
Statutory Authority:
Small Business Act, sections 8 and 15, as amended; Executive Orders 12073, 12432, and 12138;
P.L. 106-50; CAA.
315
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$12,867.6
$12,867.6
52.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$12,960.0
$12,960.0
57.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$12,784.0
$12,784.0
57.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$13,298.0
$13,298.0
57.9
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$514.0
$514.0
0.0
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 a Risk Management Plan (RMP) to EPA. The RMP must also be sent to the state,
local planning entity, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and 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 (DHS) by providing updated copies of the RMP database, analytical support,
and ongoing technical support for integration of RMP and Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act (EPCRA) tools and information into DHS programs. EPA also provides
other Federal Agency partners, as well as state and local governments, information and analyses
316
-------
from the RMP database that is helpful for homeland security planning related to chemical
accidents and terrorism. In addition, EPA conducts analyses of RMP data to identify chemical
accident trends and industrial sectors that may be more accident-prone and to gain knowledge on
the effectiveness of risk management measures34.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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. As such, EPA has developed and
implemented an RMP audit and inspection program in an effort to help agencies, states, and
prospective third party auditors acquire or improve skills required to conduct audits. This
program also is used to continuously improve the quality of risk management programs as well
as check compliance with the requirements.
In FY 2009, 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. Due to the increased concern over homeland security, as well as lessons
learned from recent accidents, EPA will conduct more RMP inspections in FY 2009 at
high-risk facilities, such as petroleum refineries and larger chemical manufacturing sites.
EPA will continue its extensive quality assurance oversight of data collection and
reporting procedures.
• EPA will complete work on an update and revision to its RMP and EPCRA Inspector
Training curriculum, and provide training for Federal, state, and local implementing
agency inspectors.
• EPA will complete work to transition the RMP submission system to completely 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.
• FY 2009 coincides with the second major RMP five year update cycle since inception of
the Risk Management Program. All facilities that have not updated their RMPs within
the past five years will be required to send an updated plan to EPA. Therefore, EPA will
receive and process approximately 10,000 updated Risk Management Plan submissions
during this fiscal year.
34 http://vosemite.epa.gov/oswer/CeppoWeb.nsf/content/RMPsubmission. htm
317
-------
• Using the results of the FY 2008 survey of the Nation's Local Emergency Planning
Committees (LEPCs), EPA will develop guidance materials in order to meet the
identified needs of the LEPCs, provide technical assistance, and work with State
Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs) and the National Association of State Title
III Program Officials (NASTTPO) to provide support for the LEPCs.
• EPA will continue to support DHS' implementation of the Department's Chemical
Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS). This new regulatory program incorporates
the EPA RMP list and threshold quantities, and integrates the RMP*Comp modeling
software tool into DHS' Top Screen for CFATS. EPA provides ongoing technical
support and consultation to DHS in this effort.
• 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, continue 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
continue to provide real-time technical support via the RMP Reporting Center. EPA also
will provide end user or train-the-trainer training as requested through EPA Headquarters
or Regional Offices.
• EPA will work with The Fertilizer Institute to complete publication and outreach on new
joint implementation guidance materials for Agricultural Retail Facilities covered under
the EPA Risk Management Program. This Internet-based suite of guidance materials will
include an on-line tutorial, a guidance manual, and a web-based tool allowing covered
facilities to develop, download, and print their own customized operating procedures and
maintenance manuals needed for compliance with RMP requirements.
• EPA will participate with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to continue
refining the international NFPA Hazardous Chemicals Code (NFPA-400). After its
initial publication in 2008, this code will ultimately be adopted by state and local
authorities as the 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 multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program/Project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$337.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
318
-------
• (+$177.0) This change reflects the restoration of the 1.56% rescission in addition to small
technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support costs across the
program.
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.
319
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$14,605.5
$14,605.5
41.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,728.0
$15,728.0
43.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$15,504.0
$15,504.0
43.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$15,109.0
$15,109.0
43.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($395.0)
($395.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program is the Agency's only multi-media, integrated
provider of information to the public on the releases and other waste management of toxic
chemicals from a broad segment of industrial facilities. The program collects data on over 600
chemicals, operates all systems for warehousing of the information, provides quality assurance,
and then makes it publicly available on an annual basis within a year of its collection. Because
of their scope and timeliness, TRI data are the premier source of information for community right
to know groups and thereby fulfill the Agency's requirements under Section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. The data are also extensively used by
the financial community to monitor company "greenness" and by other EPA programs to reduce
their own data needs and reply to requests from regulated industries.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA anticipates continuing its efforts to reduce the TRI reporting burden on
industry without compromising the utility or quality of the data. The main focus of the FY 2009
efforts in this regard will be to continue to improve web-based applications to simplify reporting
and to improve quality assurance tools to better identify areas of industry desired reporting
guidance (e.g. trace metals in scrap). This guidance can greatly reduce the cost of completing the
TRI questionnaire.
In addition, EPA will continue to provide TRI reporting facilities with compliance assistance
through workshops, web-based reference tools, and telephone hotline support. EPA also will
continue working to increase the percentage of TRI reports that are submitted in electronic
format via EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) as well as increasing the number of States
participating in TRI data exchange. This latter activity will also reduce industry reporting burden.
The program will also work in partnership with other EPA programs and stakeholder groups to
expand the availability and usability of all toxic chemical release information. This will include
working with public groups to provide better hazard and other contextual information. Such
information will allow local communities to better prioritize their concerns in terms of the
320
-------
chemicals posing the most significant risk, rather than potentially misleading pounds-based
decision making. A key activity in this area is implementing the Toxicity Equivalency Rule
(TEQ) which will greatly improve the public's understanding of dioxin emissions.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports several cross-cutting goals and objectives. Currently, there are
no performance measures specific to this program project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$166.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$500.0) The reduction reflects the presumption that most programming for the Toxicity
Equivalency Rule (TEQ) rule will be completed by FY 2009 and by lower industry
training costs as the program increases its use of web based training.
• (-$530.0) This reduction is the result of accounting changes in the regions which have the
effect of shifting costs from this program project to the IT/Data Management program
project.
• (+$469.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; SARA; EPCRA; CAA; CWA; SOW A; TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA;
FFDCA; ERD and DAA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA; Pollution
Prevention Act.
321
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$10,861.3
$10,861.3
78.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$11,477.0
$11,477.0
73.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$11,328.0
$11,328.0
73.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$11,710.0
$11,710.0
73.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$382.0
$382.0
0.0
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 in recognition of the Federal government's trust responsibility to Federally-
recognized tribes. EPA's American Indian Environmental Program leads the Agency-wide effort
to ensure environmental protection in Indian country. (See http://www.epa.gov/indian/ and
http://www.epa.gov/indian/policyintitvs.htm for more information.)
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;
• Provide the opportunity for implementation of Tribal environmental programs by tribes,
or directly by EPA, as necessary.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
To expand EPA's effort to ensure environmental protection in Indian country, the program
strives to provide support to EPA's National Tribal Operations Committee, the Tribal Caucus,
and support for Agency-wide multimedia meetings, including the Indian Program Policy
Council. EPA conducts program evaluations which aid in improving delivery of financial
322
-------
services to tribes and is committed to measures development work across the Agency that
strengthens the accuracy and relevancy of tribal measure outcomes.
Access to information is a powerful tool in assisting local Tribal priority setting and decision
making and is a major emphasis for EPA's Tribal Capacity programs. In FY 2007 EPA
launched the American Indian Tribal Portal. The purpose of the portal is to help American
Indian communities and supporters locate Tribal related information within EPA and other
government agencies. The portal is operated and maintained by EPA's American Indian
Environmental Program and work to support this effort will continue in 2009. (See
http://www.epa.gov/Tribalportal/ for more information.)
The ability to comprehensively and accurately examine conditions and make assessments
provides a blueprint for planning future activities and helps maximize limited resources.
Priorities are implemented through the development of Tribal/EPA Environmental Agreements
(TEAs) or similar Tribal environmental plans that address and support priority environmental
multi-media concerns in Indian country. Complementary to the efforts of providing an
environmental presence through the Indian General Assistance Program (GAP), EPA's enhanced
information technology infrastructure, which includes the Tribal Program Enterprise
Architecture (TPEA), extracts records from databases on the basis of Tribal reservation
boundaries and assigns those records to Tribal governments. This process is known as "Tribally
enabling" the EPA Enterprise Architecture. By 2009, the continued integration and merger of
TPEA with the EPA Enterprise Architecture will lead to a more efficient information technology
infrastructure.
TPEA, part of the Agency's Envirofacts system, is a multi-agency, multimedia database that is
designed to support Tribal programs for all tribes, as well as the EPA National Program
Managers. The database links Tribal environmental information from EPA with Tribal data
systems from other agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Indian Health
Service. In FY 2009, EPA will continue to enhance this database to promote management of
Tribal environmental programs and to show results of environmental improvements in Indian
country. TPEA organizes 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 entirely Internet-based and 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 environmental data to be submitted by Tribes.
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]
323
-------
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. In FY 2009, EPA will continue to encourage Tribal capacity development to implement
federal environmental programs, including the use of Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative
Agreement (DITCA) authority.
EPA instituted an annual review of the national GAP grant program to ensure effective
management of grant resources. This effort includes review of Regional GAP programs and
individual GAP grant files. Regional reviews of the GAP program by the Agency will continue
in FY 2009. All GAP grantees must meet the requirement, begun in FY 2007, to submit a
standardized work plan which includes milestones, deliverables and links to the Agency's
strategic plan. Standardized workplans lead to a better characterization of environmental and
public health benefits of the capacity building activities in a consistent manner.
Performance Targets:
In FY 2009, 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 has been 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
2009, 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 is 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 2009 TPEA will continue to 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. Work under this program supports multiple strategic
objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$327.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$55.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
Indian General Assistance Program Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4368b (1992), as amended.
324
-------
Program Area: International Programs
325
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$5,790.7
$5,790.7
22.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,646.0
$4,646.0
21.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,439.0
$5,439.0
21.2
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($5,439.0)
($5,439.0)
-21.2
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 thousand of
the 14 million people in the region live in 1,200 colonias35, which are unincorporated
communities characterized by substandard housing and unsafe drinking water.
The key areas of focus for the Border 2012 Program 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA integrated the U.S.-Mexico Border, International Capacity Building, and Persistent Organic
Pollutants programs in FY 2009. The activities are described within the International Sources of
Pollution program.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's objective to sustain, clean up, and restore communities
and the ecological systems that support them. Currently, there are no performance measures
specific to this program project.
1 http://www.borderhealth.org/border_region.php
326
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$5,439.0 / -21.2 FTE) This represents a transfer to the International Sources of
Pollution program. This is the outgoing transfer from the U.S.-Mexico Border base
resources, including payroll and FTE, and does not reflect a reduction in that program's
resources.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; CAA; TSCA; RCRA; PPA; FIFRA; Annual Appropriation Acts.
327
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$4,208.8
$4,208.8
6.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,022.0
$4,022.0
6.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,962.0
$3,962.0
6.4
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($3,962.0)
($3,962.0)
-6.4
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA integrated the Environment and Trade and Commission on Environmental Cooperation
programs in FY 2009. The activities are described within the Trade and Governance program.
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 2009 Change from 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,962.0 / -6.4 FTE) This represents a transfer to the Trade and Governance program.
This is the outgoing transfer from the Commission on Environmental Cooperation's base
resources, including payroll and FTE, and does not reflect a reduction in that program's
resources.
Statutory Authority:
NAFTA; NAAEC.
328
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$1,817.4
$1,817.4
8.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,945.0
$1,945.0
8.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,920.0
$1,920.0
8.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,920.0)
($1,920.0)
-8.9
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
329
-------
liberalization. EPA's third major function under the TPA involves helping to negotiate and
implement the 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA integrated the Environment and Trade and Commission on Environmental Cooperation
programs in FY 2009. The activities are described within the Trade and Governance program.
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
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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,920.0 / -8.9 FTE) This represents a transfer to the Trade and Governance program.
This is the outgoing transfer from the Environmental and Trade base resources, including
payroll and FTE, and does not reflect a reduction in that program's resources.
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.
330
-------
International Capacity Building
Program Area: International Programs
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor 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 2007
Actuals
$7,210.8
$7,210.8
34.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,311.0
$5,311.0
27.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,228.0
$5,228.0
27.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($5,228.0)
($5,228.0)
-27.1
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 plays a key role in protecting human health and the
environment by providing technical cooperation to help countries reduce air pollution, better
manage air quality, and reduce the global use and emission of mercury.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA integrated the U.S.-Mexico Border, International Capacity Building, and Persistent Organic
Pollutants programs in FY 2009. The activities are described within the International Sources of
Pollution program.
331
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's objective to sustain, clean up, and restore communities
and the ecological systems that support them. Currently, there are no performance measures
specific to this program project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$5,228.0 / -27.1 FTE) This represents a transfer to the International Sources of
Pollution program. This is the outgoing transfer from the International Capacity Building
base resources, including payroll and FTE, and does not reflect a reduction in that
program's resources.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; FIFRA; CAA; TSCA; NEPA; CWA; SOW A; RCRA; CERCLA; NAFTA; OAPCA;
MPRSA; CRCA.
332
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$1,682.4
$1,682.4
9.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,831.0
$1,831.0
11.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,808.0
$1,808.0
11.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,808.0)
($1,808.0)
-11.3
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 Convention36. 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA integrated the U.S.-Mexico Border, International Capacity Building, and Persistent Organic
Pollutants programs in FY 2009. The activities are described within the International Sources of
Pollution program.
36
For more information on the Stockholm Convention, see http://www.pops.int
333
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's objective to sustain, clean up, and restore communities
and the ecological systems that support them. Currently, there are no performance measures
specific to this program project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,808.0 / -11.3 FTE) This represents a transfer to the International Sources of
Pollution program. This is the outgoing transfer from the Persistent Organic Pollutants
base resources, including payroll and FTE, and does not reflect a reduction in that
program's resources.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; FIFRA; CAA; TSCA; NEPA; CWA; MPRSA.
334
-------
International Sources of Pollution
Program Area: International Programs
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality
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 2007
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$12,408.0
$12,408.0
59.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$12,408.0
$12,408.0
59.6
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 from its sources, it becomes clearer that the actions of
other countries can affect the U.S. environment. In many cases, it is more efficient to reduce
emissions from foreign sources than from domestic ones. Solving these and other problems
requires strong collaboration between EPA and its international partners.
To achieve our domestic environmental objectives, it is important to address foreign sources of
pollution that impact the U.S. International capacity-building plays a key role in protecting
human health and the environment by providing technical cooperation to help countries reduce
air pollution, better manage air quality, and reduce the global use and emission of mercury. The
depletion of natural resources, such as forest cover in one nation, can have environmental and
economic consequences in many other countries. Air quality in the U.S. is affected by emissions
from other countries, such as particles, mercury and toxics, which can have a detrimental impact
on human health and the environment in the U.S.
Long-range and transboundary atmospheric transport and deposition of POPs such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, 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. EPA's international
efforts, under the Stockholm Convention37, are focused to reduce Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POPs). Domestic POPs-related activities and associated funding are included in the Toxic
Substances: Chemical Risk Management program.
For more information on the Stockholm Convention, see http://www.pops.int
335
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Air Quality
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to provide technical cooperation to help communities and
countries reduce air pollution and better manage air quality. Partnership for Clean Fuels and
Vehicles, a global partnership launched at the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) in 2002, will continue to focus on (a) lead phase-out, (b) introduction of low-sulfur
fuels, and (c) introduction of cleaner vehicle technologies. Our efforts in 2009 will include
working with the approximately 20 countries that have not yet eliminated lead from gasoline,
introducing catalytic converters in those countries that have recently eliminated lead in gasoline,
and supporting improved standards and demonstration projects that encourage sulfur reductions
in transport fuels to 50 ppm and lower globally.
In continuation of efforts to reduce transboundary 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. To help reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions worldwide, EPA will work with China, Mexico, Russia, and India through
capacity and technology transfer activities.
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 as we collaborate
with partners to improve air quality. For example, EPA will work with the Indian government to
continue to develop a national standard for nitrogen oxides from power plants, and develop a
harmonized air monitoring network in Central America that will be integrated with NASA's
satellite monitoring to provide key air quality information throughout Central America.
In FY 2009, 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 four sectors - chlor-alkali,
products, combustion, and artisanal mining - which together account for over 80% of global
anthropogenic atmospheric emissions of mercury38.
Border Regions
The US/Mexico Border 2012 Program is a joint effort between the U.S. and Mexican
governments.2 In FY 2009, the Program will continue to focus on: (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.
: http://www.epa.gov/border2012/pdf/2012 english.pdf
336
-------
To date, the US/Mexico Border program has successfully implemented Phase 1 and 2 of the
stabilization and clean-up 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 and recycling
of 50 tons of lead smelter process equipment in Mexico. In FY 2009, the Metales y Derivados
remediation will be in the final stages of restoration. These actions are consistent with the
Border 2012 draft Binational Policy on Clean-Up and Restoration.3 In FY 2009, incorporating
lessons learned, the Border 2012 Program will focus on remediation of other hazardous waste
sites on the border. Specifically, Border 2012 has started assessment and will begin clean-up of
two new sites: 1) Laguna Escondida in Tamaulipas, Mexico, lagune contaminated with untreated
waste; and 2) Nacosari in Sonora, Mexico, an abandoned mine.
Because of the known public and environmental threats of the over 10 million used tires
stockpiled across the US/Mexico Border, the cleanup of abandoned tire piles is a significant
binational border priority. One of the largest tire piles in the whole border region is the Ciudad
Juarez pile, with approximately 4-5 million tires. In the California/Baja California region, the
largest tire piles were in Centinela, with 1.2 million tires and INNOR, with over 400,000 tires.
Working in cooperation with local and state governments and industry, cleanups at all three of
the largest tire piles along the border are underway or completed. Cleanup at the INNOR and
Centinela tire pile in the Mexicali are completed. Both of these projects sent the waste tires to
cement kilns where they were used as tire derived fuel. In FY 2009, Border 2012 will continue
the clean up of the remaining large tire pile in Ciudad Juarez, with the goal of removing
approximately one million tires per year. In addition, Border 2012 will develop institutional
capacity materials for waste management and pollution prevention as they pertain to scrap tire
pile prevention along the US/Mexico border.
Water Quality
In FY 2009, EPA will continue developing and implementing its' program to address water
quality issues worldwide. In Latin America and Asia, EPA will continue to promote the
development and implementation of Water Safety Plans (WSPs), a health-based risk assessment
methodology for managing drinking water quality. By identifying the greatest vulnerabilities
within an entire water system, from catchment to consumer, water utilities are able to target their
investments strategically to have the greatest health impact. This work includes collaborating
with the World Health Organization and other key partners on sharing experiences and lessons
learned globally. EPA's focus will be to promote WSPs as a sustainable approach to improving
drinking water quality. Additionally, EPA will continue to identify and share sustainable finance
mechanisms that can be used to support critical water infrastructure improvements in other
countries.
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. In addition, EPA will work with the U.S. Coast Guard,
Department of State, and other interested agencies to pursue development of more stringent
1 http://www.epa. gov/border2012
337
-------
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.
Land Pollution
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to provide technical cooperation, expertise, and assistance to help
communities and countries preserve and restore the land and to mitigate sources of land
pollution. 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 and prohibited 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.
In FY 2009, 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.
Persistent Organic Pollutants
EPA will continue to 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. In 2009, EPA will develop the Integrated Hazardous Waste Management Strategy for
Russia and begin destruction of pesticides in two Russian regions. In addition, EPA will assist
China with the first pilot demonstration project to reduce dioxins/furans emissions from the
Chinese cement sector, which produces over one-half of the world's cement.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of countries
completing phase
out of leaded
gasoline.
(incremental)
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
7
FY 2009
Target
4
Units
Countries
338
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cleanup waste sites
in the United States-
Mexico border
region.
(incremental)
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
1
Units
sites
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of countries
introducing low
sulfur in fuels.
(incremental)
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
2
FY 2009
Target
3
Units
Countries
FY 2009 Change from 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$5,228.0 / +27.1 FTE) This redirection is the result of a realignment of program
projects. These funds are an incoming transfer of the International Capacity Building
program's base resources, including payroll and FTE.
• (+$1,808.0 / +11.3 FTE) This redirection is the result of a realignment of program
projects. These funds are an incoming transfer of the Persistent Organic Pollutants
program's base resources, including payroll and FTE.
• (+$5,439.0 / +21.2 FTE) This redirection is the result of a realignment of program
projects. These funds are an incoming transfer of the US/Mexico Border program's base
resources, including payroll and FTE.
• (+$584.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for the transferred
existing FTE.
• (-$651.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; FIFRA; CAA; TSCA; NEPA; CWA; SOW A; RCRA; CERCLA; NAFTA; OAPCA;
MPRSA; CRCA; Annual Appropriation Acts.
339
-------
Trade and Governance
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 2007
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$6,216.0
$6,216.0
16.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,216.0
$6,216.0
16.3
Program Project Description:
As our understanding of environmental issues has increased, so has our appreciation of the need
to partner with other countries on environmental goals. International cooperation is vital to
achieving our mission. Our shared goals for environmental protection can open doors between
the United States and foreign governments. Assisting other countries in their environmental
protection efforts can be an effective part of a larger U.S. strategy for promoting sustainable
development and advancing democratic ideals. EPA supports U.S. diplomatic, trade, and foreign
policy goals that extend far beyond our domestic agenda.
Good environmental governance abroad not only yields a cleaner environment, it helps ensure
that U.S. companies and communities compete on an equal footing in the international
marketplace. In particular, EPA works with U.S. trading partners to help them enforce their own
environmental laws. Through leadership in the Commission on Environmental Cooperation
(CEC), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and other international
entities, EPA supports environmental performance reviews of other countries so that good
governance best practices (such as providing access to information, collaborating with diverse
stakeholders, and providing transparency in environmental decision making) are shared and
countries continually improve.
EPA has played a key role in ensuring trade-related activities also sustain environmental
protection since the 1972 Trade Act mandated inter-agency consultation by the U.S. Trade
Representative on trade policy issues. U.S. trade with the world has grown rapidly from $34.4
billion in 1960 to $2.884 trillion in 2006 (U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division). This
increase underscores the importance of addressing the environmental consequences associated
with trade. 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 free trade agreements, and other matters. In
addition, USTR and EPA co-manage the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee
340
-------
(TEPAC), a Congressionally-mandated advisory group that provides advice and information in
connection with the development, implementation, and administration of U.S. trade policy.
EPA, represented by the Administrator, is the lead U.S. agency to implement the North
American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which involves trilateral efforts
to assess and reduce the environmental effects of the recent dramatic increases in trade among
the three North American nations.
The establishment of the NAAEC was driven by the notion that trade liberalization would
increase trade but subsequently would likely have a negative impact on the environment in North
America. NAFTA did in fact result in increased commerce, and trade with NAFTA partner
countries has increased 480.6 percent since 1985 (in 1985 total trade among Canada, Mexico and
the U.S. was $149.0 billion; in 2006 that number grew to $865.3 billion).39 Booming trade after
NAFTA's entry into force has caused increasing traffic congestion and related environmental
consequences, particularly in terms of air pollution.40 For example, the majority of trade
between Mexico and the U.S. is carried by heavy-duty diesel trucks, which are major emitters of
NOx and particulate matter (PM). The increased traffic entering the U.S. at key border
crossings, such as the San Diego/Tijuana area, have resulted in correspondingly higher NOx and
PM emissions.41
To address trade-related environmental issues, EPA performs four major functions. 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. EPA also works with USTR
to promote environmental protection through liberalized trade in environmentally-preferable
goods and services. A second major function involves helping to develop the U.S. Government's
(USG) environmental reviews of each new free trade agreement, as well as encouraging other
trade partners to assess the environmental implications of their own trade liberalization
commitments. EPA's third major function in this area involves helping to negotiate and
implement the environmental cooperation agreements that parallel each trade agreement, such as
the NAAEC. EPA, along with USG agencies and other collaborators support implementation of
agreements by assisting our trading partners to develop effective and efficient environmental
protection standards. A fourth major function is to provide technical and policy guidance so as
to minimize potential conflicts between trade and environment policy during the negotiation of
trade policy and obligations, as well as the development of domestic regulations.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
During FY 2009, EPA will continue to provide input to U.S. engagement in multilateral trade
negotiations and initiation and/or conclusion of new bilateral free trade agreements and trade and
investment framework agreements. To facilitate a successful conclusion of the Doha Round of
39 US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, 2007
40 U.S. Transportation Research Board, The National Academies, "Critical Issues in Transportation," 2006
41 Short-term exposure to diesel exhaust can irritate the eye, nose and throat, cause respiratory symptoms such as
increased cough, labored breathing, chest tightness and wheezing, and cause inflammatory responses in the airways
and the lung. Longer-term exposure to diesel exhaust can cause chronic respiratory symptoms and reduced lung
function, and may cause or worsen allergic respiratory diseases such as asthma
341
-------
negotiations under the WTO, EPA will continue to provide the USTR with policy and technical
guidance, as well as analytical data to inform environmental practices in key trade partner
countries. In addition to helping the USTR develop and negotiate the environmental provisions
of these agreements, EPA will contribute to the associated environmental reviews and
environmental cooperation agreements and advocate greater attention to key environmental
concerns (e.g., invasive species and air pollution) associated with the movement of traded goods.
EPA also will provide targeted capacity building support under the environmental cooperation
agreements developed parallel to U.S. free trade agreements such as those with Jordan, Chile,
Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Singapore, and in the Central American, North American and the
Caribbean regions. Should the newly concluded agreements with Colombia, Peru or South
Korea enter into force, EPA will seek to provide appropriate capacity building assistance to these
countries. The priorities for a majority of this cooperative work 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 inter-agency process. NAAEC priorities are set by
the CEC member countries.
As the first environmental cooperation agreement under a trade agreement, the NAAEC paved
the way for many of our subsequent efforts under other FTAs and is thus a good example of
EPA's approach to trade-related work. Through the NAAEC, EPA will continue to work with
Mexico and Canada through the CEC to 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. EPA will also 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 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
342
-------
were developed and are being implemented for mercury, lindane, and dioxin and furans. EPA
will also 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, which will improve the comparability of data and compatibility of
information across the three countries in North America on continent-wide environmental topics,
including a harmonized classification system for industrial pollutant data.
EPA will support the CEC's efforts to catalyze cooperation among the Parties to the NAAEC on
North American Air Quality management through the completion and implementation of a new
strategy that builds upon the previous CEC work to assist Mexico in developing emissions
inventories and building air monitoring capacities that are comparable with the United States and
Canada. 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; and 3) expanding the use of market based mechanisms to increase
sustainable trade while encouraging conservation.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Goal 4 objective to sustain, clean up and restore
communities and the ecological systems that support them, and also indirectly supports all four
additional goals. There are currently no performance measures for this program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3,962.0 / +6.4 FTE) This redirection is the result of a realignment of program
projects. These funds are an incoming transfer of the Commission on Environmental
Cooperation program's base resources, including payroll and FTE.
• (+$1,920.0 / +8.9 FTE) This redirection is the result of a realignment of program
projects. These funds are an incoming transfer of the Environment and Trade program's
base resources, including payroll and FTE.
• (+1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
• (+$90.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$244.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
343
-------
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.
344
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
345
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$4,291.9
$562.3
$4,854.2
10.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,583.0
$792.0
$6,375.0
15.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,504.0
$780.0
$6,284.0
15.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$5,790.0
$801.0
$6,591.0
15.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$286.0
$21.0
$307.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Information Security program protects the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of
EPA's information assets. The program also 1) establishes a risk-based cyber security program
using a defense-in-depth approach that includes partnering with other Federal agencies and the
states, 2) implements aggressive efforts to respond to evolving threats and computer security
alerts and incidents, and integrates information security into its day-to-day business, 3) manages
the Federal Information Security Management Act data collection and reporting requirements,
and 4) supports the development, implementation, and operation and maintenance of the
Automated Security Self Evaluation and Reporting Tool documentation system.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA also will coordinate information security activities which support emerging
Homeland Security IT needs, as well as Exchange Network and IT/Data Management program
requirements. The Agency will, where possible, identify and implement more efficient solutions.
Effective information security is a constantly moving target. Every year, Agency managers are
challenged with responding to increasingly creative and sophisticated attempts to breach
organizational protections. The goal of the Agency's Information Security program is to
effectively protect the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of EPA's information assets
amid the evolving risks that are present in a fully networked world. The Agency's Information
Security program uses a defense-in-depth approach that includes partnering with other Federal
agencies and states, integrating information security into day-to-day business operations, and
aggressively responding to evolving threats and computer security alerts and incidents. The
program is based on a successful implementation of the Federal Risk Management Framework,
mandated by the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). This is a collective
346
-------
effort to harden the Agency's diverse and distributed IT environments in accordance with federal
security standards.
The foundation for the Federal Risk Management Framework is a requirement that Agency
managers understand the protection requirements of the information they use while fulfilling the
Agency's mission operations. Based upon that understanding, managers must ensure appropriate
federal security standards are implemented, that security standard decisions are documented, and,
most importantly, that implementation is rigorously monitored to ensure the protection remains
effective. The Information Security program assists Agency managers in implementing these
requirements as well as preparing and providing periodic mandated reports to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress. Failing to securely manage Agency information
and information systems could severely disrupt the Agency's ability to fulfill its environmental
mission. A breach of confidentiality, such as a release of sensitive personally identifiable
information (PII), could do significant harm to individuals as well as impact the Agency's
budgetary decisions and harm the Agency's credibility. Breaches of integrity and availability
could severely impact confidence in the reliability of Agency information. If such breaches
accompanied an emergency of some kind, it would negatively affect the Agency's emergency
response.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Federal
Information Security
Management Act
reportable systems
that are certified and
accredited.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$54.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTEs.
• (+$232.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
FISMA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; PR; EFOIA.
347
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$99,196.3
$4,522.1
$136.5
$23.8
$15,975.5
$119,854.2
497.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$91,019.0
$3,499.0
$177.0
$34.0
$16,338.0
$111,067.0
488.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$90,753.0
$3,453.0
$174.0
$33.0
$16,083.0
$110,496.0
488.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$94,360.0
$3,859.0
$162.0
$24.0
$16,872.0
$115,277.0
488.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,607.0
$406.0
($12.0)
($9.0)
$789.0
$4,781.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
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. This program houses all of the
critical IT infrastructure that allows efficient exchange and storage of data, analysis and
computations. It also allows access to the scientific, regulatory, and best practice information
needed by agency staff, the regulated, community, and the public. These functions are integral to
the implementation of Agency information technology programs and systems like the Exchange
Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX), and the Permit Compliance System (PCS). Recent
partnerships include portals projects with EPA's Research and Development and Air and
Radiation programs. Because the IT/Data Management function supports the entire Agency,
funds are provided in each operating appropriation including Environmental Programs and
Management.
This program manages and coordinates the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and develops
analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound environmental decision-making.
The program implements the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov) responsibilities and 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
348
-------
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.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA's Information Technology community will continue to focus on improving the
Agency's use of technology, pursuing enterprise solutions and protecting privacy and security of
data holdings while improving delivery of information and services to partners and citizens. 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 and data access and sharing opportunities among the states, the tribes, the public, the
regulated community, and EPA.
The Environmental Information program's FY 2009 technology efforts have three major
components:
• OEI's efforts in the areas of Analytical Capacity and Indicators are expected to help
identify data gaps, and suggest areas where additional capacity is needed;
• Through use of the portal and Exchange Network, the Technology Initiative program will
increase the integration of quality data, streamline transactions to foster collaboration,
reduce the data entry burden, and improve decision making;
• OEI's Readiness to Serve initiative will build the capacity and infrastructure needed to
allow more EPA employees to telecommute or work safely and securely in the field.
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 efforts and its focus areas work together to advance data analyses and the
development of an analytical tool kit, including environmental indicators. These efforts will be
reflected in the next "Report on the Environment." That document has two major components,
the science document and the summary document, both of which are expected to be released to
the public in mid-2008.
Technology efforts in FY 2009 for EPA's Integrated Portal activities include implementing
identity and access management solutions and integrating geospatial tools. The Portal is the
EPA'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 employees to access, exchange and integrate standardized local, Regional and
national environmental and public health data.
349
-------
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, over time, into a single resource on a standard platform which is
accessible to everyone in the Agency, reducing data and document search time and assisting in
security and information retention efforts.
EPA's infrastructure program will continue to deliver secure information services to ensure that
the Agency and its programs have a full range of information technology infrastructure
components (e.g., user equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application hosting, and remote
access) that make information accessible across the spectrum of mission needs at all locations.
The program uses performance-based, outsourced services to obtain the best solutions (value for
cost) for the range of program needs. This includes innovative multi-year leasing that sustains
and renews technical services in a least-cost, stable manner as technology changes over time
(e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance). Physical infrastructure is a challenge
because demands on bandwidth increase as system capabilities and public users grow.
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.
In FY 2009, EPA continues active participation in nine government-wide E-government
initiatives and six Lines of Business. Through these projects, EPA will implement consolidated
practices used to manage information technology, improve access and tools for analysis of
environmental information, create new approaches to allow citizens and businesses to more
directly participate in Agency rulemaking activities, and develop enterprise solutions for our
internal business practices. EPA contributions to the initiatives are intended to ensure
efficiency, economy, and security in federal IT investments and systems used by federal
employees, partners, stakeholders and citizens.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,287.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$530.0) This change is a shift of regional resources from TRI/Right to Know program
into general IT support.
350
-------
• (+$ 1,218.0) This increase reflects a restoration of funds that were reduced in this program
in FY 2008 for anticipated Agency-wide IT/infrastructure savings pending analysis of
final costing. The analysis has been completed and funding changes have been
incorporated across the board for FY 2009 IT/infrastructure costs.
• (-$1,000.0) This decrease reduces congressionally-directed funding of $1 million for
library support. Funds were provided for enhancements to benefit the entire EPA Library
Network. The FY 2009 budget request will support the Network at the level of service
described in the Report to Congress due March 26, 2008.
• (-$423.0) This change reflects the net of expected savings from IT and
telecommunications to support investment in e-Government activities.
• (+$1,995.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs
• (-0.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAA; CWA; ERD &DAA;TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; SOW A; FFDCA;
EPCRA; RCRA; SARA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA.
351
-------
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
352
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$4,891.0
$4,891.0
34.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,260.0
$5,260.0
34.7
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,178.0
$5,178.0
34.7
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$4,949.0
$4,949.0
33.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($229.0)
($229.0)
-1.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009 the ALJ office will be funded at $2,721 thousand with 18.3 FTE, and the EAB office
will be funded at $2,228 thousand with 15.4 FTE. By adjudicating disputed matters, the ALJs
and EAB will further the EPA's long-term strategic goals of protecting human health and the
environment in FY 2009. The EAB issues final Agency decisions in environmental
adjudications on appeal to the Board. These decisions are the end point for appeals 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,
353
-------
avoided more costly litigation. The EAB and ALJs also use videoconferencing technology to
reduce expenses for parties involved in the administrative litigation process.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
• (-$229.0) This change reflects the 1.56% rescission to all program projects combined
with small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support costs
across programs.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; FIFRA; CWA; CAA; TSCA; RCRA; SOW A; EPCRA; as provided in Appropriations
Act funding.
354
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$970.5
$1,020.6
$1,991.1
6.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,175.0
$837.0
$2,012.0
7.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,160.0
$825.0
$1,985.0
7.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$1,264.0
$846.0
$2,110.0
7.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$104.0
$21.0
$125.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Agency's General Counsel and Regional Counsel Offices will provide environmental
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$53.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
355
-------
• (+$51.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
356
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$10,796.0
$10,796.0
71.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$11,240.0
$11,240.0
70.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$11,065.0
$11,065.0
70.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$11,097.0
$11,097.0
68.5
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$32.0
$32.0
-1.5
Program Project Description:
EPA's Office of Civil Rights provides 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. EPA's Civil Rights 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. EPA's Office of Civil Rights provides 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.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The FY 2009 funding amounts for the Office of Civil Rights in Headquarters will be $7,656
thousand with 39.5 FTE and the Regional portion will be funded at $3,441 thousand with 29.0
FTE. In FY 2009, the Office of Civil Rights will focus on its core mission, to insure the fair and
equitable treatment of all employees and applicants, and to foster an environment in which
diversity is recognized as a valuable resource within the Agency as a whole. EPA expects to
conduct compliance reviews of five recipients of EPA financial assistance in FY 2009. The
357
-------
Agency's Civil Rights External Compliance Program also expects to improve its processing of
external complaints.
In FY 2009, the Agency will:
• Work with the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services and
the Department of Education on issues regarding discrimination on the basis of age, sex, and
other factors, as well as working with other Federal agencies that may simultaneously receive
discrimination complaints from the same complainant regarding a particular recipient
agency.
• Work to reduce employment complaints while completing all new discrimination complaints
within required time frames.
• Ensure that certification training and guidance is provided to more than 100 EEO Counselors
in the Agency's Regional offices per year. The Agency will continue to train EEO Officers
in the Discrimination Complaint Tracking System, 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; support special emphasis
programs and initiatives that involve management, unions, and community groups; meet on a
regular basis with external and union officials to improve communication and relationships;
and coordinate the development of recruitment and retention strategies.
• In FY 2009, 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.
358
-------
As a result of these activities, the Agency's mission and cornerstone themes will be supported by
a workforce that is motivated, treated in a fair and non-discriminatory manner and produce
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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$81.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$49.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
• (-1.5 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).
359
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$38,242.4
$826.8
$39,069.2
240.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,366.0
$606.0
$39,972.0
247.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$39,480.0
$740.0
$40,220.0
247.2
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$39,925.0
$631.0
$40,556.0
247.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$445.0
($109.0)
$336.0
0.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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, and drafting assistance
on, 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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,892.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$707.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
combined with several changes in IT, travel or other support costs.
360
-------
• (-$740.0) This change reduces a congressionally directed increase in the FY 2008
Omnibus. Support efforts for agency programs can be implemented at the requested
level.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
361
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$12,435.8
$12,435.8
81.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$13,986.0
$13,986.0
85.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$14,117.0
$14,117.0
85.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$14,442.0
$14,442.0
85.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$325.0
$325.0
0.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, legal representational services, legal counseling and legal support will be provided
for all Agency activities as 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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$708.0) This reflects increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
362
-------
• (-$383.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
combined with several technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs. Funds will support legal analyses and operations in FY
2009.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
363
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$3,399. 8
$3,399.8
3.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,574.0
$3,574.0
3.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,518.0
$3,518.0
3.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$3,318.0
$3,318.0
2.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($200.0)
($200.0)
-1.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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
364
-------
allow EPA to analyze samples more cost effectively and/or detect lower levels of contaminants,
and to assay new and emerging contaminants of concern, such as endocrine disrupters,
perchlorate, mercury, and chemical weapons and their degradation products. In accordance with
new policy directives, 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 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. The Agency's
Laboratory Competency Policy, established in 2004, requires all Agency laboratories to seek
accreditation or equivalent external assessments, if no suitable accreditation program is available
(such as for research activities). In FY 2009 Regional laboratories will sustain existing
accreditations or seek accreditation, according to their approved Implementation Plan.
EPA's 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 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act and
Superfund programs. The laboratories analyze samples associated with a variety of activities
including unpermitted discharges, illegal storage and/or disposal of hazardous wastes, and illegal
dumping. Resulting 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 are used to ensure, for example,
that the national network of ozone ambient monitors accurately measure ozone concentrations in
support of Mobile Source and Air Toxics PART measures. Nearly 60 percent of the analyses
performed by Regional laboratories support the cleanup of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites associated with the Superfund program. Analytical support also is 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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$118.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a reduction based on a recalculation of base workforce
costs.
365
-------
• (-$100.0) This decrease represents anticipated savings accomplished through more
efficient laboratory management and administrative practices, and automation changes
that will encourage more economically efficient laboratory resource utilization.
• (+$18.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
• (-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:
CWA; CAA; TSCA; CERCLA; SOW A; PPA; RCRA; FIFRA.
366
-------
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 Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$22,498.4
$22,498.4
112.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$23,866.0
$23,866.0
106.7
FY 2008
Enacted
$21,327.0
$21,327.0
106.7
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$24,405.0
$24,405.0
106.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,078.0
$3,078.0
-0.1
Program Project Description:
Increasingly, complex environmental problems - such as poor water quality, rising levels of
urban smog, and the need for cost effective solutions to national water infrastructure issues -
require the Agency to find new ways to leverage partnership opportunities with states, local
communities, and businesses to produce better environmental results at lower costs. The testing
of innovative, new ideas and creative approaches is critical to continued environmental progress
and to building the next generation of environmental protection - one that focuses more on
results and less on process; emphasizes environmental protection, not just pollution control; and
takes a comprehensive approach to environmental problem-solving that will lead to sustainable
outcomes.
As EPA works collaboratively with external partners to test new approaches to environmental
protection, the Agency has a responsibility to understand and act on the environmental results
that its programs achieve. Moving towards a "results-driven organization," EPA needs to
analyze performance information collected through established Agency processes and
requirements in a timely manner and use the information to inform Agency decisions. Through
performance analysis and program evaluation, the Agency will be able to integrate innovations
and best practices into the way it does business.
Through public recognition, incentives, and help in overcoming regulatory barriers, the Agency
promotes environmental stewardship in all parts of society. EPA encourages and enables
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
367
-------
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, Regulatory Innovation activities will include:42
National Environmental Performance Track: Performance Track recognizes and encourages
private and public facilities to demonstrate strong environmental performance and achieve
measurable results that go beyond current requirements. In FY 2009, the program will focus on
meeting its three-year leadership goal of 550 members (current member total is 496); increase
the program's business value for members and prospective members; implement incentives and
provide information that enable facilities to reach higher levels of environmental performance;
and focus further on achieving significant environmental results that reflect the Agency's
priorities. The Performance Track program will improve the usability and breadth of
performance information, implement national and regional challenge commitments, and leverage
state environmental leadership programs by better aligning Performance Track with the
approximately 22 similar state programs. (Total EPA cost, including salary is $7,175 thousand
with 33 FTE.)
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 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 compliance
assistance, self-certification, and statistically-based performance measurement. It helps small
business sectors improve environmental performance and creates the means for more efficient
oversight. In FY 2009, EPA anticipates making up to eight awards. Since 2002, EPA has
supported 35 projects with grants awarded to 24 states through the State Innovation Grant
program. (Total EPA cost, including salary is $3,008 thousand with 12 FTE.)
Innovative Pilot Testing: While State Innovation grants are the primary mechanism for the
development and implementation of strategic innovations, pilot testing of promising new ideas is
conducted through a variety of additional mechanisms. Examples include organizing the
development and issuance of flexible air permits (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. (Total EPA cost, including salary $2,031
thousand with 15 FTE.)
Environmental Management Systems (EMS): EMSs are internal decisional tools that business
and industry use to identify their "environmental footprint," and to reduce their environmental
42 For more information, please see http://www.epa.gov/opei/.
368
-------
impacts while increasing operating efficiency. EPA will provide leadership and coordination
with other agencies, states, industry, and governmental organizations 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 strengthen national EMS implementation programs in several key
sectors, including agribusiness, construction, shipbuilding and ports. (Total EPA cost, including
salary is $1,600 thousand with 4 FTE.)
Sector Strategies Program: This program supports EPA's mission by developing comprehensive
performance improvement strategies for major manufacturing and service sectors of the U.S.
economy, designed to promote widespread environmental gains with reduced administrative
burden. In FY 2009, there will be at least 13 participating sectors, including agribusiness;
chemical manufacturing; construction; pulp and paper; steel; oil and gas; and ports, representing
more than 800,000 facilities nationwide. The program will focus greater attention on priority
issues such as energy production and efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and material
recovery/reuse. The program will reduce performance barriers and promote industry-wide
stewardship initiatives, such as the Mercury Switch Removal Program. The program will
enhance its strong focus on environmental results through expanded analysis of sector-wide
trends, presented in Sector Strategies Performance Reports. (Total EPA cost, including salary is
$3,316 thousand with 14.9 FTE.)
Program Evaluation and Performance Analysis: Resources are consolidated for program
evaluation to help assess whether program outputs are leading to desired outcomes and
promoting continuous program improvement. In FY 2009, through an annual Program
Evaluation Competition managed by the National Center for Environmental Innovation,
resources will be provided to EPA programs and Regional offices to conduct evaluations of
priority programs. Specific consideration is given to evaluations that further the 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. Performance analysis
helps the Agency answer the questions of "what," "how," and "why" related to program
performance: what are others achieving; how are they achieving them; and why are some
achieving better results than. (Total EPA cost, including salary is $2,555 thousand with 7.7
FTE.)
Building Stronger Communities: The Smart Growth program achieves measurably improved
environmental and economic outcomes by working with states, communities, industry leaders,
and nonprofit organizations to minimize the environmental impacts of development. The
program provides tools, technical assistance, education, and research to help states and
communities grow in ways that minimize environmental and health impacts of development
patterns and practices. The Smart Growth program shows community and government leaders
how they can meet environmental standards through innovative community design and identifies
and researches new policy initiatives to support environmentally friendly development patterns.
EPA engages the architecture, transportation, construction, residential and commercial real estate
industries to identify and remove barriers to growth and to improve the economy, community,
public health, and the environment. In FY 2009, EPA plans to build upon its work in outreach
369
-------
and direct implementation assistance. EPA will provide national best practices to communities
and use its local, on-the-ground work to communicate its national research and policy agenda.
EPA has identified four areas as offering the greatest potential for strategic environmental
returns: (1) state and local Governments; (2) standard-setting organizations; (3) Federal
government; and, (4) the Private Sector. (Total EPA cost including salary is $2,817 thousand
with 14.9 FTE.)
Environmental Stewardship: 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)
assessing legal authorities that hinder collaborative approaches, (2) seeking ways to improve
implementation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act to gain multi-stakeholder consensus on
controversial issues, and (3) providing information to assist in improving public engagement in
controversial and complex environmental issues that need resolution in a geographic area. EPA
plans to improve the 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. (Total EPA cost, including
salary is $1,903 thousand with 8 FTE.)
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
75 percent of
innovation projects
completed under the
SIG program will
achieve, on average,
8 percent or greater
implementation in
environmental
results for sectors
and facilities
involved, or 5
percent or greater
implementation in
cost-effectiveness &
efficiency.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
75
FY 2009
Target
75
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce hazardous
materials use at
Performance Track
facilities.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
10,000
FY 2009
Target
10,000
Units
Tons
370
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce water use at
Performance Track
facilities.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
3,900,000,
000
FY 2009
Target
3,900,000,
000
Units
Gallons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce combined
NOx, SOx, VOC
and PM emissions at
Performance Track
facilities.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
4,000
FY 2009
Target
4,000
Units
Tons
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce production
of greenhouse gases
at Performance
Track facilities.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
175,000
FY 2009
Target
175,000
Units
MTCO2E
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduce toxic
releases to water at
Performance Track
facilities.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
220
FY 2009
Target
220
Units
Tons
Work under this program supports EPA's Objective 5.2: Improve Environmental Performance
Through Pollution Prevention and Other Stewardship Practices.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$465.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$800.0) These resources are consolidated from across the Agency to create a central
coordination point to support the development of a robust evaluation capability in
performance management.
• (-$880.0) This decrease reflects the integration of regulatory innovation and other
collaborative partnerships into existing programs throughout the Agency. In FY 2009, the
Agency also will shift its Sector Strategies focus and resources to larger business sectors,
and will reduce the annual number of State Innovation grants awarded.
• (+$2,355.0) This change reflects the restoration of a reduction directed by Congress for
FY 2008. The restored resources will provide tools, technical assistance, education, and
371
-------
research to help states and communities grow in ways that minimize environmental and
health impacts of development patterns and practices.
• (+$338.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs. Funding will support the innovation program.
• (-0.1 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Annual Appropriations Acts; CWA, Section 104(b)(3); CAA, Section 104(b)(3).
372
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$17,755.0
$17,755.0
99.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$20,104.0
$20,104.0
104.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$16,381.0
$16,381.0
104.2
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$20,588.0
$20,588.0
104.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$4,207.0
$4,207.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's regulations and programs have far-ranging impacts and must be based on the best possible
analyses. The Regulatory Economic, Management and Analysis program is designed to
strengthen EPA's policy and program analysis, and ensure EPA's managers are provided with
timely regulatory, policy and program management information. Activities are designed to
ensure that the Administrator and other senior EPA leaders have sound analyses for decision-
making. The program works to fill gaps in EPA's ability to quantify the costs and benefits of
environmental regulations and policies and improve operations and outcomes based on program
and performance analyses. Resources are used to develop and analyze various regulatory and
non-regulatory approaches; develop and evaluate policy options; identify successful approaches;
address priority problem areas; and to target specific areas of concern, such as small businesses.
A particular area of emphasis is providing management information on regulation and policy
development and program management to ensure better managerial accountability. An increased
effort will be placed on improving program operations.
Objectives of the program include:
• Ensuring that Agency decision-making processes are invested with high quality and
timely information so that appropriate consideration is given to all relevant science,
economic, and policy factors and to ensure consideration of an appropriate range of
alternatives to achieve the best overall environmental results.
• Advancing the theory and practice of quality economics, and promoting policy analysis
and risk analysis within the Agency.
• Providing information on the full societal impacts of reducing environmental risks,
including the costs and benefits of regulatory options.
373
-------
• Supporting the development of regulatory and policy alternatives, especially economic
incentives as an environmental management tool.
• Confirming and maintaining the accuracy and consistency of EPA's economic analyses,
while promoting the use of economic, science, regulatory and program analysis to
inform management decisions throughout the Agency.
• Leading Agency implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), and advocating for
appropriate Small Business outreach and accommodation in EPA rulemaking to address
unnecessary burdens on small entities.
• Promoting appropriate implementation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Program activities planned for FY 2009 include:
• Participating in the development of the Administrator's priority actions, reviewing
economic and risk analyses conducted across EPA offices, and providing technical
assistance when needed to help meet Agency goals. The Agency also will continue to
chair the Small Business Advocacy Panels.
• Conducting and supporting research on methods to improve the quality and quantity of
economic science available to inform the Agency's decision-makers, including
management of the Science to Achieve Results in the Economic and Decision Sciences
research program. Research priorities include estimation of the economic value of
improvements in human health and welfare, integration of ecological and economic
models to value improvements in ecological functions and services and improvements in
other data collection techniques used to measure economic costs and benefits. The
Agency also will establish effective management systems to improve the quality and
consistency of EPA's economic and risk assessment studies.
• Supporting data collection and the dissemination of information on the economic
benefits, costs and impact of environmental regulations, including for example,
examining pollution abatement and control expenditures by U.S. manufacturing
industries.43
• Providing training on the Agency's Action Development process, Economic Analysis
Guidelines and related requirements (e.g., OMB Circular A-4). EPA will review and
revise its economic guidelines so that they remain current with advancements and reflect
best practices in the profession.44
43 Please refer to: http://www.census.gov/econ/overview/mullOO.html
44 Please refer to: http://vosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html:
374
-------
• Facilitating communication between the scientific community and Agency policy
analysts by supporting workshops on priority economic and environmental policy issues,
(e.g., benefits valuation, market mechanisms and incentives, and treatment of
uncertainties in risk and economic analyses45). Support the utilization of high-quality
outside technical peer review of influential economic models and methods used in
Agency regulations.
• Improving the availability of management information.
• Conducting program analysis and seeking to improve operations and environment
outcomes.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$353.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$3,553.0) This change reflects the restoration of a reduction taken to this program
directed by Congress in FY 2008. Funding is needed to support research on methods to
improve the quality and quantity of economic science available Agency's decision-
makers.
• (+$301.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs.
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.
45 For more information on these workshops, please refer to:
http://vosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpagesAVorkshopSeries.html.
375
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$4,983.3
$4,983.3
25.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,790.0
$4,790.0
22.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$4,727.0
$4,727.0
22.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$5,083.0
$5,083.0
22.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$356.0
$356.0
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 EPA's Administrator with independent advice and peer review on scientific and
technical aspects of environmental problems, regulations and research planning.46
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency brings all of its important scientific products to the SAB as well as emerging and
challenging research issues. In FY 2009, the Board will provide scientific and technical advice
on 20 key topical areas related to: (1) the technical basis of EPA national standards for air
pollutants and water contaminants; (2) risk assessments of major environmental contaminants;
(3) economic benefits analyses of EPA's environmental programs; and (4) EPA's research and
science programs.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives.
performance measures for this specific Program.
Currently, there are no
46
Please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/sab/.
376
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$250.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$106.0) This change reflects the restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs.
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.
377
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
378
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$327,954.1
$32,886.2
$28,672.1
$848.5
$500.4
$70,265.0
$461,126.3
399.2
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
Enacted
$297,189.0
$72,707.0
$26,511.0
$887.0
$488.0
$73,787.0
$471,569.0
415.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$311,068.0
$74,884.0
$26,931.0
$902.0
$496.0
$76,270.0
$490,551.0
410.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$13,879.0
$2,177.0
$420.0
$15.0
$8.0
$2,483.0
$18,982.0
-5.3
Program Project Description:
EPM resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations program 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 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. Because this program supports the entire agency, funds are included in
most appropriations. Because this program supports the entire Agency, funds are included in
most appropriations.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
For FY 2009, the Agency is requesting a total of $164,866 thousand for rent; $11,333 thousand
for utilities; $25,676 thousand for security; $9,381 thousand for transit subsidy; and $6,437
thousand for regional moves in the EPM appropriation. The Agency also will continue to
manage its lease agreements with General Services Administration and other private landlords by
conducting rent reviews and verifying that monthly billing statements are correct. The Agency
reviews space needs on a regular basis, and is developing a long-term space consolidation plan
379
-------
that includes reducing the number of occupied facilities, consolidating space within the
remaining facilities, and reducing the square footage where practical.
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 Order (EO) 1342347, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy,
and Transportation Management. Additionally, the Agency will attain the Executive Order's
goals through several initiatives, including comprehensive facility energy audits; re-
commissioning; 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. In FY 2009, we plan to reduce energy utilization (or improve
energy efficiency) by approximately 190.5 billion British Thermal Units. Based on current
energy rates and including an inflation factor of 4 percent we estimate a net savings to the
Agency of approximately $1.84 million.
EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by EO 13150 Federal
Workforce Transportation. EPA will continue its integration of Environmental Management
Systems (EMS) across the Agency, consistent with requirements of Executive Order 1342349.
EPA will advance the implementation of Safety and Health Management Systems to identify and
mitigate potential safety and health risks in the workplace to ensure a safe working environment.
Further, the Agency's Protection Services Detail (PSD) provides physical protection of the
Administrator, by coordinating security arrangements during routine daily activities, as well as
in-town and out-of-town events. The PSD coordinates all personnel and logistical requirements
(i.e., scheduling, local support, travel arrangements, special equipment) needed to carry out its
protective function.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative
percentage reduction
in energy
consumption.
FY 2007
Actual
9
FY 2007
Target
6
FY 2008
Target
9
FY 2009
Target
12
Units
Percent
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$334.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$204.0) This reflects an increase in resources for transit subsidy.
Information available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3423/
48 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
49 Information available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3423/
380
-------
• (+$3,605.0) This increase reflects the net of projected savings in rent and the restoration
of Congressionally directed cut in fixed costs as well as the 1.56% rescission in FY 2008
Omnibus. These funds will fund the projected contractual rent increases in FY 2009.
• (+$3,251.0) This increase will provide additional resources for increases in utility costs.
This total includes the restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
• (+$727.0) This increase will provide additional resources for increases in security costs.
This total includes the restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
• (+$1,620.0) This change reflects the balance of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects resources requested that are used to fund priority facility support costs.
• (+$1,676.0) This represents an increase in funding for IT and telecommunication
resources.
• (-18.8 FTE) This change reflects transfers to the Human Resources program, in response
to an increased workload in human capital and human resources; a transfer of
Competitive Sourcing functions to the Acquisition Management program (4.0 FTE); and
a transfer of workforce mediation functions and the Human Resources program (4.0
FTE).
• (+$1,461.07 +9.0 FTE) This increase reflects the net base workforce cost for a shift of
9.0 FTE for the Protection Services Detail.
• (+$1,001.0) This increase shifts non-payroll dollars for the Protection Services Detail,
which provides physical protection to the EPA Administrator. These resources will be
consolidated with other Agency security resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations program project. Resources are being consolidated from other program
projects. This is a zero sum transaction.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Annual Appropriations
Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; CWA; CAA; RCRA;
TSCA; NEPA; CERFA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; EPACT of 2005; Executive Orders 10577,
12598, 13150 and 13423; Emergency Support Functions (ESF) #10 Oil and Hazardous Materials
Response Annex; Department of Justice United States Marshals Service, Vulnerability
Assessment of Federal Facilities Report; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical
Infrastructure Protection).
381
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$64,431.2
$812.6
$20,428.7
$85,672.5
519.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$74,960.0
$1,102.0
$24,306.0
$100,368.0
530.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$73,949.0
$1,085.0
$24,008.0
$99,042.0
530.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$80,623.0
$1,131.0
$26,102.0
$107,856.0
538.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,674.0
$46.0
$2,094.0
$8,814.0
8.1
Program Project Description:
Activities under the Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance program 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency works to ensure sound financial and budgetary management through the use of
routine and ad hoc analysis, statistical sampling and other evaluation tools. In addition, more
structured and more targeted use of performance measurements has led to better understanding
of program impacts as well as leverage points to increase effectiveness.
EPA will continue efforts to modernize the Agency's financial systems and business processes.
The Agency is working to 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 allow the Agency to improve efficiency and automate quality control
functions to simplify use of the system as well as 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.
382
-------
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.
In FY 2009, 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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,666.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$3,520.0) This increase is to cover revised estimates of the expected FY 2009
expenditures for the Financial Replacement System (FinRS) Capital Investment project.
• (+$1,488.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects combined with small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel, or
other support costs across programs. The restored funds will support continuity in
provision of the financial services for the Agency and baseline financial systems
operations.
• (+6.4 FTE50) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The increased FTE will
support the Agency's Presidential Management Agenda efforts in the areas of Budget
Planning and Integration, Financial Management.
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.
50 The total increase in workyears for this program, as shown in the resource table above, includes two reimbursable
FTE for e-Relocation services provided by EPA on behalf of other Federal agencies
383
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$23,654.1
$223.1
$19,129.3
$43,006.5
340.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,992.0
$165.0
$24,645.0
$54,802.0
357.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$28,629.0
$162.0
$24,327.0
$53,118.0
357.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$31,195.0
$165.0
$24,985.0
$56,345.0
362.9
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,566.0
$3.0
$658.0
$3,227.0
5.6
Program Project Description:
EPM resources in this program support contract and acquisition management activities at
Headquarters, Regional Offices, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and Cincinnati,
facilities. 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to implement its new acquisition system, scheduled to be
deployed in FY 2010. 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. Further, the system itself is obsolete; and therefore an upgrade
is not cost-efficient.
The new system will provide the Agency with a better, more comprehensive way to manage data
on contracts that support mission-oriented planning and evaluation. This will allow the Agency
to reach the 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.
384
-------
In addition, the Agency will utilize the Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE), an E-Gov
initiative that creates 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. The program will also continue to implement new training
requirements associated with the IAE and the new acquisition system.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,264.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$90.0) This provides funding for the E-Government initiative Integrated Acquisition
Environment—Loans and Grants.
• (+$25.0) This increases funding for the EPA's Acquisition E-Government initiative.
• (+$187.0) This change reflects the 1.56% rescission to all program projects in addition to
small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support costs across
programs. Funds will support the implementation of the acquisition management system.
• (+9.6 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The change includes a
transfer of Competitive Sourcing functions from the Facilities, Infrastructure and
Operations program, as well a realignment of Regional contract management workload.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; annual Appropriations Acts; FAR.
385
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$20,564.5
$2,671.4
$23,235.9
169.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$23,439.0
$3,049.0
$26,488.0
177.5
FY 2008
Enacted
$23,242.0
$3,001.0
$26,243.0
177.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$25,977.0
$3,116.0
$29,093.0
177.5
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,735.0
$115.0
$2,850.0
0.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
51
In FY 2009, 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. 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, by
improving systems support, by performing indirect cost rate reviews, by providing Tribal
technical assistance, and by implementing its Agency wide training program for project officers,
grant specialists, and managers. EPA also will continue to streamline Grants Management
through the E-Government initiative Grants Management Line of Business (GM LoB). GM LoB
1 US EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-R-03-001, April 2003, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/finalreport.pdf.
386
-------
offers government-wide solutions to grants management activities that promote citizen access,
customer service, and agency financial and technical stewardship.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from the FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$970.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$1,550.0) This increase provides additional funding for the Grant Management Line of
Business initiative, a government-wide solution to support end-to-end grants management
activities that promote citizen access, customer service, and agency financial and
technical stewardship. Funds are included to support modernization of current systems to
accommodate new linkages.
• (+$215.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
combined with small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; FGCAA; Section 40 CFR Parts 30,
31,35, 40, 45, 46, and 47.
387
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$39,740.2
$3.0
$5,203.0
$44,946.2
298.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$40,175.0
$3.0
$5,036.0
$45,214.0
296.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$39,760.0
$3.0
$4,969.0
$44,732.0
296.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$43,646.0
$3.0
$5,063.0
$48,712.0
304.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,886.0
$0.0
$94.0
$3,980.0
8.3
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. The Agency continually evaluates
and improves human resource and workforce functions, employee development, leadership
development, workforce planning, and succession management.
FY 2009 Activities and Highlights:
In FY 2009, the Agency will continue its efforts to strengthen its workforce by focusing on key
areas to further develop our existing talent, and by strengthening our recruitment and hiring
programs. EPA also remains committed to fully implementing EPA 's Strategy for Human
Capital52, 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
2009, 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.
• Shortening the hiring timeframes for the senior executives and non-SES positions
through improved automation and enhancements to application process.
1 US EPA, Investing in Our People II, EPA's Strategy for Human Capital. Available at http: //www.epa. go v/oarm/strategy .pdf
388
-------
• Implementing innovative recruitment and hiring flexibilities that address personnel
shortages in mission-critical occupations.
In FY 2009, the Agency will fully implement the Leadership and Professional Development
Rotation Program (LPDRP), and the SES Mobility Program. The LPDRP provides employees
with new perspectives on the work performed within EPA. The program will provide rotational
opportunities for permanent EPA employees in grades GS-13 through GS-15 in order to create a
versatile workforce that supports planning and strategic goals. The SES Mobility Program
provides SES corps with opportunities to collaborate with seasoned executives in order to
enhance leadership development skills.
As part of these activities, EPA will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Agency human
resources operations by establishing Shared Service Centers. These Shared Service Centers will
process personnel and benefits actions for EPA's 17,000 employees, as well as vacancy
announcements. The establishment of Human Resources Shared Service Centers reflects EPA's
ongoing commitment to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Agency operations. The
Centers will enhance the timeliness and quality of customer service and standardize work
processes.
In addition, EPA will continue to streamline human resources management by employing the
E-gov 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.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Average time to hire
non-SES positions
from date vacancy
closes to date offer
is extended,
expressed in
working days
FY 2007
Actual
28
FY 2007
Target
45
FY 2008
Target
45
FY 2009
Target
45
Units
Days
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
For SES positions,
the average time
from date vacancy
closes to date offer
is extended,
expressed in
working days
FY 2007
Actual
66
FY 2007
Target
90
FY 2008
Target
73
FY 2009
Target
68
Units
Days
389
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Agency Managers'
satisfaction with the
initial stages of the
human resources
hiring process, as
measured by the
average score across
4 questions in the
OPM Management
Hiring Satisfaction
Survey.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Maintenance and
improvement of
MCO employee
competencies, as
measured by
proficiency levels of
competencies in
MCO's re-assessed
in 2009.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
80
Units
Percent
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,869.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE. This
includes an increase for the Agency's rising workers compensation unemployment cost.
• (+$500.0) This increase reflects the establishment of a permanent SES Mobility Program
that will strengthen succession planning and support the Agency's workforce planning
efforts.
• (+$500.0) This increase reflects the establishment of the Leadership Development
Rotation program, as part of a development program for GS-13, -14 and -15 level
employees.
• (-$500.0) This reflects a realignment of resources which, as part of a management
strategy, will help EPA to better align resources with Agency high priority programs.
• (+$50.0) This provides funding for the E-Government initiative Electronic Official
Personal Files (E-OPF).
• (+$467.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs. Funds will support human resources operations and policy efforts.
390
-------
• (+8.3 FTE) This change reflects an increase in human resources and human capital
management activities at EPA's Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, office, as well
as a transfer of the Agency's Workforce Solutions program staff from the Facilities,
Infrastructure and Operations program.
Statutory Authority:
Title V United States Code.
391
-------
Program Area: Pesticides Licensing
392
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$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
Enacted
$61,819.0
$3,250.0
$65,069.0
488.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$60,606.0
$3,453.0
$64,059.0
477.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,213.0)
$203.0
($1,010.0)
-11.2
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's Pesticide program evaluates, assesses and reviews new pesticides before they reach the
market and ensures that pesticides already in commerce are safe.53 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 registration review of pesticides to
protect consumers, pesticide users, workers who may be exposed to pesticides, children, and
other sensitive populations. To make registration, and registration review 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 1993 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.54 Several countries and
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-
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides internet site: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/. Washington,
DC: Office of Pesticide Programs.
54 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Health and Safety, Reducing Pesticide Risk internet site:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/reducing.htm.
393
-------
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 reevaluation 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.55 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
During 2009, 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 Renewal Act (PRIA 2) 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.
Pesticide registration actions will continue to evaluate pesticide products before they enter the
market.56 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.
In 2009, EPA will begin the review of 70 pesticides and complete final work plans for 60
through the Registration Review Program, and continue the review of pesticides for which
dockets were opened and final work plans were completed in earlier years. Through Registration
Review and REDe implementation, EPA will continue to ensure that pesticides meet current
scientific standards and address concerns identified after the original registration.57 The goal of
the Registration Review program is to review pesticide registrations every 15 years to ensure that
they meet the most current standards. As the program is implemented, EPA will continue to
maintain the Agency's goal of ensuring that pesticides in the marketplace meet the latest health
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.
56 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Topical & Chemical Fact Sheets, Pesticide Registration
Program internet site: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/registration.htm.
57 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration internet site:
www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration.
394
-------
and safety standards. Registration review will operate continuously, encompassing all registered
pesticides.
The Agency will continue to ramp-up the Registration Review program and implement
Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions (REDs) associated with assessing human health. As part of
RED implementation, EPA will continue to address 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. The end result of these activities is protecting
human health by implementing statutes and 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
2009, 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. 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 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
<=
3.5/100,
000
FY 2009
Target
<=
3.5/100,
000
Units
Incid/100
000
395
-------
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percent reduction in
review time for
registration of
conventional
pesticides.
FY 2007
Actual
5
FY 2007
Target
9
FY 2008
Target
10
FY 2009
Target
10
Units
Percent
Reduction
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Reduced cost per
pesticide
occupational
incident avoided.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
2
FY 2009
Target
6
Units
Percent Cum.
Reduction
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent reduction in
concentrations of
pesticides detected
in general
population.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
18
FY 2008
Target
18.5
FY 2009
Target
19
Units
Percent Cum.
Reduction
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
agricultural acres
treated with
reduced-risk
pesticides.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
19
Units
Percent Acre-
Treatments
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent reduction in
moderate to severe
incidents for six
acutely toxic
agricultural
pesticides with
highest incident rate.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2008
Target
20
FY 2009
Target
30
Units
Percent Cum.
Reduction
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,000.0 \ -9.2 FTE) This reduction reflects the completion of the non-food use
Reregi strati on Eligibility Decisions (REDs) and transition to Registration Review in FY
2007. Through Registration Review, EPA is required to review each registered pesticide
approximately every 15 years and this work can successfully be supported through
increased Maintenance user fees.
396
-------
• (+$352.0 ) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$1,930.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs. This funding will support implementation of the
Registration Review Program.
• (-$495.0) This change redirects regional grant resources to Realize Value of Pesticide
Availability to better align with the new Pesticides budget structure.
• (-2.0 FTE) The adjustment redirects regional grant management resources to Realize
Value of Pesticide Availability to better align with the new Pesticides budget structure.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA 2; FIFRA; FFDCA; ESA; and FQPA.
397
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$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
Enacted
$41,214.0
$2,087.0
$43,301.0
320.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$41,215.0
$2,216.0
$43,431.0
307.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$1.0
$129.0
$130.0
-13.1
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."
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).58 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.59
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
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.
59 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.
398
-------
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.
As a result of a lawsuit filed against the Services, The United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington 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 has made assessing potential risks to endangered species a
priority and will continue to work with the Services to find efficiencies. EPA also has instituted
processes to consider endangered species issues routinely in EPA reviews.
FY 2009 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.60 In FY 2009 the Agency will continue to work with USGS to
develop sampling plans and refine goals, and 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 by the US Geological Survey (National-Water-Quality
Assessment). EPA will meet goals for reducing the number of watersheds with exceedences for
these pesticides 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 review of pesticides currently in the marketplace and implementation of the decisions
made as a result of these reviews are a necessary aspect of meeting EPA's goals, they are not
sufficient in and of themselves. Without having alternative products to these pesticides 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 also will continue to 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.
60Gilliom, 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/.
399
-------
Another program focus in F Y 2009 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.
The Agency is shifting resources within the program to support continued compliance with the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act. In FY 2009, EPA will integrate state-of-the
science models, knowledge bases and analytic processes to increase productivity and better
address the challenge of potential risks of specific pesticides to specific species.
Interconnection of the various databases within the program office will provide improved
support to the risk assessments during the registration review process by allowing risk assessors
to analyze complex scenarios relative to 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.
In FY 2009, 63 of the pesticides beginning Registration Review are expected to require
comprehensive environmental assessments, including determining endangered species impacts.
This may result in an expanded workload due to the necessity of issuing data call ins (DCIs) and
conducting additional environmental assessments for pesticides already in the review pipeline.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Average cost and
average time to
produce or update
an Endangered
Species Bulletin.
FY 2007
Actual
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2007
Target
10
FY 2008
Target
19
FY 2009
Target
28
Units
Percent Cum.
Reduction
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of urban
watersheds that
exceeds EPA
aquatic life
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
25,25,30
FY 2009
Target
20, 20, 25
Units
Percent
400
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
benchmarks for
three key pesticides
of concern.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
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. With
completion of the plan, USGS is currently developing final 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 site samples per year based on the watershed land-use class.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
» (-$2,000.0 \ -9.0 FTE) These funds have been diverted from Registration, Registration
Review and RED Implementation actions to Endangered Species Act related work which
is integral to supporting Registration Review. Diversion may impact annual and long-
term strategic measures but can successfully be supported through increased user fees.
• (+$2,000.0) This increase supports continued compliance with the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act including the integration of state-of-the science models,
knowledge bases and analytic processes for risk assessors to analyze complex risk
scenarios relative to endangered species.
• (-$550.0) This change redirects regional grant resources to the Realize Value of Pesticide
Availability program to better align with the new Pesticides budget structure.
• (-4.1 FTE) The adjustment redirects regional resources to the Realize the Value of
Pesticide Availability program from the Pesticide Human Health Risk program to better
align with the new Pesticides budget structure.
• (-$512.0) 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.
401
-------
• (+$1,063.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs. These funds will support additional analysis for
integrating Endangered Species Act considerations in the registration process.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA 2; FIFRA; FFDCA; ESA; and FQPA.
402
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$12,114.0
$472.0
$12,586.0
90.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$11,959.0
$465.0
$12,424.0
90.4
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$12,870.0
$495.0
$13,365.0
93.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$911.0
$30.0
$941.0
3.3
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..."
The Realize the Value of Pesticides Program focuses on ensuring that adequate pesticides are
available both in emergency situations and through ongoing education and research in
environmentally friendlier pest remediation methods. An example of actions that lead to these
societal benefits are exemptions granted under FIFRA Section 18. In the event of an emergency,
i.e., a severe pest infestation, FIFRA Section 18 provides EPA the authority to temporarily
exempt certain pesticide 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.
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.
403
-------
EPA's Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program's efforts to increase adoption of Integrated
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 in
participating schools. This "Monroe Model" serves as an example of how to implement IPM in
school districts across the country. The Monroe Model is based on a case in Monroe County,
Indiana which achieved a 92 percent reduction in pesticide use, enabling them to also direct their
cost savings to hire a district-wide coordinator to oversee pest management in the schools. As a
result of this achievement, Monroe County was awarded the Governor's Award for Pollution
Prevention. The Monroe County IPM Program has now evolved into the Monroe School IPM
Model. By using this model, the emphasis is placed on minimizing the use of broad spectrum
chemicals and on maximizing the use of sanitation, biological controls and selective methods of
application.61
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA's statutory and regulatory functions for pesticides include registration, reregi strati on,
registration review, implementation, risk reduction, rulemaking and program management.
During 2009, 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 Renewal
Act (PRIA 2) 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.
http ://www. epa. gov/pesticides/ipm/
404
-------
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 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
1.5 B
FY 2009
Target
1.5 B
Units
Loss avoided
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 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
900 M
FY 2009
Target
900 M
Units
Dollars
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 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
2 ($2.57)
FY 2009
Target
4 ($2.52)
Units
Reduced
(Dollar/acre)
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$850.0 \ +3.3 FTE) This change redistributes regional resources from the Protect the
Environment Program and Human Health Program to the Realize the Value Program to
better align with the new Pesticides budget structure.
• (+$764.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (-$703.0) This decrease is a realignment of resources and is not expected to delay
emergency exemptions though it may affect activities associated with Registration,
Registration Review, RED Implementation actions or Strategic Agriculture Initiative
405
-------
grants. However, these activities can be successfully supported through increased user
fees. This total is a net decrease, including the restoration of the 1.56% rescission.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA 2; FIFRA; FFDCA; ESA; and FQPA.
406
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$1,202.9
$1,202.9
6.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,780.0
$1,780.0
6.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,752.0
$1,752.0
6.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$1,675.0
$1,675.0
6.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($77.0)
($77.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Agency will continue providing scientific and policy expertise, coordinating EPA
interagency and international efforts as well as facilitating the sharing of information related to
core science policy issues concerning pesticides and toxic chemicals. Biotechnology is
illustrative of the work encompassed by this program. Many offices within EPA regularly deal
with biotechnology issues, and the coordination among affected offices allows for coherent and
consistent scientific policy from a broad Agency perspective. Independent science review is
provided by the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), a scientific peer-review mechanism.
Internationally, EPA will continue participating in a variety of activities related to biotechnology
and is fully committed to and engaged in international dialogues. The Biotechnology Team will
continue to assist in formulating EPA and United States positions on biotechnology issues,
including representation on United States delegations to international meetings when needed.
Such international activity is coordinated with the Department of State.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The SAP, operating under the rules and regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, will
continue to serve as the primary external independent scientific peer review mechanism for
EPA's pesticide programs and pesticide-related issues. Scientific peer review is a critical
component of EPA's use of the best available science.
EPA estimates that the SAP will be asked to complete approximately 14 reviews in FY 2009.
The specific topics to be placed on the FIFRA SAP agenda are typically confirmed a few months
in advance of each session and usually include difficult, new or controversial scientific issues
identified in the course of EPA's pesticide program activities. In FY 2009, topics may include
issues related to biotechnology, chemical-specific risk assessments, and endocrine disrupters,
among others.
EPA will continue to play a lead role in evaluating the scientific and technical issues associated
with plant-incorporated protectants based on plant viral coat proteins. EPA will also, in
407
-------
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.62
In addition, a number of international activities will continue to be supported by EPA. Examples
include representation on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's
Working Group on the Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology and the Task
Force on the Safety of Food and Feed.
Performance Targets:
Currently there are no performance measures specific to this program project. Work under this
program supports the Chemicals and Pesticide Risks objective, specifically, work done in EPA's
Pesticide and Pollution Prevention and Toxics programs. Supported programs include the
Registration of New Pesticides and Review/Reregi strati on of Existing Pesticides. Science Policy
and Biotechnology activities such as the SAP assist in meeting targets for measures under those
program projects including Endocrine Dismptors, Register Safer Chemicals and Biopesticides,
and Tolerance Reassessments.
The work in the Science Policy program also supports efforts in the Toxic Substances: Chemical
Risk Review and Reduction program. Science coordination efforts under Science Policy and
Biotechnology assist in meeting targets for the Number of chemicals or organisms introduced
into commerce that pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment through
Scientific Advisory Panel meetings and letter reviews.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$32.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$28.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
• (-$137.0) Reduction attributable to administrative efficiencies. SAP meetings will be
reduced by one.
Statutory Authority:
FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA; TSCA.
62 http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/
408
-------
Program Area: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
409
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$65,599. 8
$65,599.8
432.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$69,158.0
$69,158.0
416.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$66,297.0
$66,297.0
416.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$67,111.0
$67,111.0
397.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$814.0
$814.0
-19.9
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 project) 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.63
63
Refer to (http://www.epa.gov/rcc/).
410
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to assist states in getting permits, permit renewals, 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 difficult to permit or where emissions are difficult to control, such as boilers
and industrial furnaces (BIFs) and large, complex Federal facilities. As established in EPA's
2006-2011 Strategic Plan, EPA will prevent releases at 500 RCRA hazardous waste management
facilities by implementing initial approved controls or updated controls by 2011. During FY
2009, EPA will meet its annual target of implementing initial approved controls or updated
controls at 100 RCRA hazardous waste management 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.
The Agency will work to improve and modernize the hazardous waste tracking system by
developing an "e-manifest" system during FY 2009. 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 the regulatory development and system user requirements work accomplished during FY
2007 and 2008. This system will ensure the continued safe management of hazardous waste.
Gasification of oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials from petroleum refining as feedstocks
for clean fuels and basic chemicals 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. In FY 2009, EPA plans to follow up on the issuance of the final rule to allow
gasification, thereby expanding the reuse of petroleum residuals currently managed as waste. In
addition, the Agency will continue to work on developing a rule that would conditionally exempt
solvent-contaminated industrial wipes from full hazardous waste regulation under Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Agency is committed to completing
this rulemaking and is working to finalize the rule as quickly as possible, while ensuring that it is
based on sound science and protective of human health and the environment.
The Agency will continue its regulatory reform efforts in FY 2009 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 waste is a major project in FY 2008. In FY 2009, EPA will work
with states and other stakeholders to begin implementation of these revisions.
Another important area of reform in FY 2009 will be the continuation of efforts to make the
hazardous waste program more cost-effective and easy-to-use for the more than 100 thousand
411
-------
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 as well as an effort to streamline the management of
pharmaceutical wastes. 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 materials. EPA will
continue to work with interested parties to apply the voluntary "Guide for Industrial Waste
Management" which provides facility managers, state and Tribal regulators and interested public
with recommendations and tools to better address the management of land-disposed non-
hazardous industrial waste. EPA will continue to track state implementation of the Research,
Development, and Demonstration rule to determine whether additional rulemaking is warranted.
The Agency will continue working on implementing its regulatory determination for coal ash
and cement kiln dust, as well as work on partnership efforts for these two materials, and will
continue to participate in oil and gas state reviews. In addition, EPA will continue to assist states
in Bevill determinations and other mining related activities.
During FY 2009, 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 or other disease outbreaks.
In FY 2009, the Agency will continue to issue Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) disposal and
cleanup approvals. 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 PCBs and other materials. 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 is transferring the PCB cleanup and disposal activities from the Chemical Risk
Management program to the RCRA Waste Management program. This transfer promotes
efficiency and consolidated PCB activities into the RCRA program.
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 2009. Many of the 561 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. During FY 2009, EPA will increase the
number of tribes covered by an integrated waste management plan by 16. In addition, EPA will
increase the number of closed, cleaned up, or upgraded open dumps in Indian country or on other
Tribal lands by 27. For FY 2009, 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.
412
-------
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 2008 target is a three percent improvement
from baseline, and the 2009 target is a four percent improvement from baseline or one percent
per year.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Number of facilities
with new or updated
controls per million
dollars of program
cost.
FY 2007
Actual
3.36%
FY 2007
Target
2
FY 2008
Target
3.64
FY 2009
Target
3.68
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of
hazardous waste
facilities with new
or updated controls.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
facilities
During FY 2009, EPA will coordinate efforts with the states to meet permitting program goals
for initial and updated controls to prevent releases. The Agency has determined that the
reporting cycles for permitting and renewals will be consolidated at the end of FY 2008. These
program objectives continue to contribute toward achieving the goals of EPA's 2006-2011
Strategic Plan.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$131.0) 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 requested by the program.
• (+$945.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission in addition to small
technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support costs across
programs. Funds will support policy development and outreach efforts for the Waste
Management program.
• (+$2,000.0) This change reflects a partial restoration of funding to RCRA e-manifest
system which was reduced in FY 2008 as directed by Congress. 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.
413
-------
• (-$2,000.0) This change reflects a reduction to funding to expedite rulemaking as directed
by Congress in FY 2008. The reduction in FY 2009 will not impede the progress of this
work.
• (-19.9 FTE) This reduction 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.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA, Section 8001, as amended; RCRA of 1976 as amended; Public Law 94-580, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.; TSCA, Section 6, Public Law 94-496, 15 U.S.C. 2605; Department of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
Public Law 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988).
414
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$39,373.3
$39,373.3
236.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,573.0
$39,573.0
252.7
FY 2008
Enacted
$39,076.0
$39,076.0
252.7
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$39,018.0
$39,018.0
246.9
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($58.0)
($58.0)
-5.8
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 states64 are the primary implementers of the Corrective Action
program, EPA Regional staff have 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, remedy
construction/implementation, and technical support and oversight for state-led activities.65
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to work toward the 2020 goal of constructing final remedies at 95
percent of all facilities. Implicit in that goal, first outlined in the EPA FY 2006 - FY 2011
Strategic Plan, EPA also will control human exposures to toxins at a minimum of 95 percent of
facilities and control the migration of contaminated groundwater at a minimum of 95 percent of
facilities by 2020. These long-term goals have been set against the 2020 Corrective Action
Universe, a new baseline which EPA finalized in May 2007, which includes 3,746 facilities
believed to require corrective action. Beginning in FY 2009, the annual targets for RCRA
Corrective Action have also been revised to align with this newly assessed baseline.
The Agency will work in partnership with the states to coordinate cleanup program goals and
direction. Ensuring sustainable future uses for RCRA corrective action facilities is considered in
remedy selections and in the construction of those remedies. This is consistent with EPA's
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.
65 For more information please refer to http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction/.
415
-------
emphasis on land revitalization. The Agency will continue to present training that focuses on
selecting and completing final remedies to Regional and state RCRA Corrective Action staff.
In FY 2009, 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 under the PART review 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
Efficiency
Measure
Percent increase of
final remedy
components
constructed at
RCRA corrective
action facilities per
federal, state, and
private sector dollars
per year.
FY 2007
Actual
6.20
FY 2007
Target
3
FY 2008
Target
3
FY 2009
Target
3
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of RCRA
facilities with
human exposures
under control.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
60
Units
facilities
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of RCRA
facilities with
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
60
Units
facilities
416
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
migration of
contaminated
groundwater under
control.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of RCRA
facilities with final
remedies
constructed.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
facilities
For FY 2009 annual performance targets, EPA (and states) will complete construction at 100 of
the highest priority RCRA facilities from the 2008 baseline. EPA (and states) will continue to
track the human exposures and groundwater control environmental indicators. In FY 2009, EPA
(and states) will meet the goal of controlling human exposures to toxins at 60 of the 2008
baseline RCRA facilities. EPA (and states) will also meet the FY 2009 goal of controlling the
migration of contaminated groundwater at 60 of the 2008 baseline facilities.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$609.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1,102.0) This change reflects reduced need for resources that reflects the program's
increased efficiencies and success in addressing stabilization at 95 percent of the highest
priority RCRA facilities. This reduction will not impede the program's strategy for
proceeding with its remaining long range corrective action work.
• (+$435.0) This change reflects the net effects of the restoration of the 1.56% rescission
combined with technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support costs
across the program. These funds will support the Corrective Action program.
• (-5.8 FTE) This reduction reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
align available resources and skills to Agency priorities. The Corrective Action program
is able to reduce FTE resources due to increased efficiencies resulting from the delegated
nature of the program and improvements in program management. This reduction will
not impede Agency efforts to maximize effectiveness and reach its goals.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA, Section 8001 as amended; RCRA of 1976 as amended; Public Law 94-580, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.; TSCA, Section 6, Public Law 94-469, 15 U.S.C. 2605; Department of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
Public Law 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2499 (1988).
417
-------
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 Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$12,506.2
$12,506.2
67.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$13,666.0
$13,666.0
82.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$13,495.0
$13,495.0
82.2
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$14,397.0
$14,397.0
82.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$902.0
$902.0
0.0
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 partnerships provide performance metrics, information
sharing, recognition, and assistance to improve practices in both public and private sectors.66
The program also 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.
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.
3 Refer to http ://www.epa. gov/rcc.
418
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Under the RCC, EPA will increase its efforts to motivate and provide leadership to industry,
Federal, state and local governments, public interest groups, and citizens to reduce, reuse, and
recycle municipal wastes. In the FY 2006 - FY 2011 Strategic Plan, EPA signaled the transition
toward new effective strategic targets that benchmark and quantify our environmental progress
toward sustainable resource conservation
In FY 2009, EPA will lead enhanced efforts focused on three large-volume material categories
from municipal/commercial sources, with the greatest opportunity for recycling: (1) paper; (2)
organics; and (3) packaging and containers. These three materials represent 60 to 70 percent of
the current municipal solid waste stream and are key areas on which the nation must focus
resources to reach the 40 percent recycling challenge. The Agency also is emphasizing
reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and increased energy savings. As a result of this
increased emphasis, EPA will review its current priority materials and determine the greatest
opportunities for decreased GHG emissions and increased energy savings.
EPA's WasteWise program is now in its 14th year and has more than 1,900 partners and
endorsers. As part of a WasteWise campaign launched in 2008, EPA will provide enhanced
tools to help communities reduce waste and increase recycling and will promote alliances
between businesses and communities that can advance waste reduction and recycling. In FY
2009, EPA will enhance its efforts to promote Pay-as-You-Throw to local communities to
increase the efficiency of their materials management. The local government toolkit will be
included in the Pay-as-You-Throw promotion efforts, which will include presentations, training,
increased outreach efforts, technical assistance, and support.
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. In FY 2009,
GreenScapes plans to reach out to homeowners and target wholesalers and large retailers as well
as Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs).
Beginning in 2002, EPA collaborated with the carpet and fiber manufacturers and signed the
National Carpet Recycling Agreement (http://www.carpetrecovery.org/mou.php) along with the
Carpet and Rug Institute, state governments, and NGOs. This agreement established a 10-year
schedule to increase the amount of recycling and reuse of post-consumer carpet and reduce the
amount of waste carpet going to landfills. To date, EPA's work with its partners has been very
successful in reducing the volume of carpet which is landfilled.
419
-------
140000 -
Tons of Carpet Diverted from Landfills
2002
2003
2004 2005 2006
Year
Source: 2006 CARE Annual Report, http://www.carpetrecoverv.org/reading.php.
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 decreased disposal, 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 large industrial non-hazardous waste
streams: (1) coal combustion products; (2) construction and demolition debris; and (3) foundry
sand.
In FY 2009, the program will continue to 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. Recognizing that Clean Air Act regulations will result
in increased generation of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) materials, which can be used as a
fertilizer in agriculture, C2P2 will increase efforts to enhance markets for these materials.
EPA also will continue working with Federal, state, and private sector outreach programs to
promote environmentally safe and sound reuse and recycling of construction and demolition
(C&D) debris, which is a larger waste stream than MSW. During EPA's peer review of the
baseline data used to establish the C&D material long-term 2011 goal and annual targets,
stakeholders provided comments and clarification on the data sources used to estimate the
amount of C&D materials being recycled. After addressing these comments and including these
data, EPA recalculated the recycling rate and found that 65 percent of C&D materials were
already being recycled. Currently, EPA is working with stakeholders to develop a new long-
term goal and annual targets founded on improved data. In establishing the new goal, the
Agency will examine the accuracy, frequency, and availability of data sources. In FY 2009,
EPA will implement activities to make progress in achieving this goal: for example, partnering
with industry to develop and disseminate information materials, conduct workshops to raise
awareness, and obtain commitments from construction project developers and builders.
420
-------
Priority Chemicals Reduction
In FY 2009, 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, with an annual FY 2009 target of 1 million pounds reduced. As of
August 2007, the NPEP program has obtained industry commitments for over 6.5 million pounds
of priority chemical reductions through 2007-2011, including 2.3 million already achieved.
These reductions will be achieved primarily through source reduction made possible by safer
chemical substitutes. Currently, EPA continues to build on the successes achieved by nearly 140
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, with an emphasis on enrolling corporations on a
national basis.
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.
• Collect existing mercury for recycling.
By August 2007, EPA identified approximately 16 mercury challenge partners. The Agency has
achieved a reduction of 350 pounds of mercury from those partners and has commitments to
reduce more than 2.5 thousand pounds in addition to that total. In FY 2009, EPA expects to seek
to enroll new partners and expand commitments from existing partners.
Schools Chemical Cleanout Campaign and Prevention Program (SC3)
Since its implementation 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 2009, 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 by providing targeted grants to promote innovation in chemical
management in schools, and by expanding the network of industry partners who have
volunteered to assist schools in safely removing chemicals and helping schools develop effective
measures to prevent chemical management problems before they can occur.
E-Waste
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to address the nation's growing electronics waste stream through
partnerships with private and public entities including Plug-In To eCycling, the Federal
Electronics Challenge (FEC), and Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT).
421
-------
Through Plug-In, EPA has established partnerships with 23 major electronic businesses and
more than 95 million pounds of consumer electronics have been collected and reused or recycled
safely. Building on current Plug-In to eCycling activities EPA will investigate ways to motivate
consumers to optimize use of the existing recycling infrastructure while recycling their end-of-
life electronic equipment. The Plug-In program also will explore new ways to promote
responsible electronic recycling across the business community.
The FEC was established to advance the Federal government's goals and practices for
electronics stewardship and has grown beyond the pilot stage. As of 2006, FEC had officially
enrolled 133 Challenge partners — agencies or facilities — representing 16 Federal
departments/agencies which represent more than 80 percent of Federal agency purchasing power
for IT equipment. By the end of FY 2008, the goal is to have at least 700 thousand Federal
employees covered under the FEC. A key component of the FEC program is improving the
manner in which Federal agencies manage their used electronic equipment.
EPEAT was developed in response to growing demand by institutional purchasers for an easy-to-
use evaluation tool enabling them to compare electronic products based on environmental
performance, in addition to cost and performance considerations. As of June 2007,
approximately 532 products manufactured by 19 manufacturers were EPEAT-registered and
listed on the EPEAT Product Registry Web page. The end-of-life treatment of electronic
equipment is a key component of the EPEAT program. In FY 2009, EPA plans to identify key
elements in designing electronic components to allow improved end-of-life management (i.e.,
reuse/recycling). This work will be included in new EPEAT standards for electronic equipment.
EPA also expects to refine and build tools which identify the environmental benefits of reuse and
recycling of electronic equipment.
EPA's Recycling, Waste Minimization and Waste Management Program underwent a PART
assessment in FY 2004 and received an overall rating of "adequate".
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of coal
combustion ash that
is used instead of
disposed.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Unavail-
able
FY 2007
Target
1.8
FY 2008
Target
1.8
FY 2009
Target
1.8
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of closed,
cleaned up, or
upgraded open
dumps in Indian
Country or on other
tribal lands.
FY 2007
Actual
107
FY 2007
Target
30
FY 2008
Target
30
FY 2009
Target
27
Units
open dumps
422
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of tribes
covered by an
integrated solid
waste management
plan.
FY 2007
Actual
28
FY 2007
Target
27
FY 2008
Target
26
FY 2009
Target
16
Units
tribes
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Daily per capita
generation of
municipal solid
waste.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Unavail-
able
FY 2007
Target
4.5
FY 2008
Target
4.5
FY 2009
Target
4.5
Units
Ibs. MSW
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of pounds
(in millions) of
priority chemicals
reduced, as
measured by
National Partnership
for Environmental
Priorities members.
FY 2007
Actual
1.30
FY 2007
Target
0.5
FY 2008
Target
1
FY 2009
Target
1
Units
pounds
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Number of pounds of
priority chemicals
reduced from the
environment per
federal government
costs.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Unavail-
ablp
FY 2007
Target
1.5
FY 2008
Target
0.6
FY 2009
Target
0.6
Units
percent
In the FY 2006 - FY 2011 Strategic Plan, EPA established a new measure to increase coal
combustion ash use to 50 percent by 2011, from 32 percent in 2001, with an annual target of
increasing the percentage of coal ash used by 1.8 percent during FY 2009. The most recent data
from the 2005 annual survey show coal combustion ash beneficial use remains at 40 percent.
The Agency will implement its new relationship with USD A as a major sponsor of C2P2 in order
to provide outreach and assistance to increase the use of FGD material in agricultural
applications.
EPA continues to work on documenting the significant environmental benefits (i.e., reductions in
GHG and energy saving) from reducing, reusing, and recycling materials that were once
disposed as wastes. The effort will include a focus at the regional and local level to prevent
GHGs and save energy through materials management to increase environmental benefits. At
current resource levels, the RCC program and its partners are showing tremendous benefits; for
423
-------
example, in the area of municipal solid waste, we have seen: 12 MMTCE of GHG reductions
(equal to preventing the pollution from 9 million cars) and 349 trillion BTUs saved (equal to 2.8
billion gallons of gasoline).
In FY 2009, EPA will focus on increasing greenhouse emissions reductions and energy savings,
through efficient materials management from small businesses at the local level. In 2005,
members of three RCC programs (WasteWise, C2P2, and Carpets) reported GHG reductions of
11 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) (equal to preventing the pollution from
8.4 million cars) and savings of almost 337 trillion British thermal units (BTU) of energy (equal
to 8.5 percent of annual US residential energy use).
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 1.1 million Ibs / $2,689 million or 40.9 Ibs reduced per $100 spent. Targets
are set to improve 1.5 percent each year from the baseline.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$549.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$353.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
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).
424
-------
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
425
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$9,855.8
$9,855.8
16.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,890.0
$5,890.0
11.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$8,663.0
$8,663.0
11.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$5,847.0
$5,847.0
11.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($2,816.0)
($2,816.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) establishes policies and procedures for
implementing the endocrine effects screening authorities of the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The program develops and validates
approximately 19 candidate scientific test methods from which a battery of tests will be selected
and used for the routine, ongoing evaluation of pesticides and other chemicals to determine their
potential for adverse health or environmental effects by interfering with normal endocrine system
function. For more information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the EDSP will maintain the schedule of completing validation 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 (Tier
II). EPA will continue collaboration with our international partners through the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), conserving EPA resources and promoting
adoption of internationally harmonized test methods for identifying endocrine disrupting
chemicals. EPA is either the lead country or a participant in the following ongoing OECD
projects involving Tier 1 screening assays that are candidates for validation by EPA's EDSP:
• The H295R cell-based assay used to detect chemicals that interfere with the steroid
hormone synthesis pathway. EPA is providing two laboratories for this effort out of a
total of seven laboratories.
• The recombinant estrogen receptor assay. EPA is providing three out of a total of six
laboratories.
• The interlaboratory trials for the frog screening assay were conducted in cooperation with
laboratories across Europe. This has resulted in resource savings for the U.S.
426
-------
• EPA also is working with OECD on the design of Tier 2 assays including a more efficient
and effective assay to replace the routine use of the mammalian two-generation assay,
and multigeneration tests in fish, birds, frogs, and invertebrates.
The Endocrine Disrupter Program underwent PART evaluation in calendar year 2004 and
received a rating of "Adequate." The assessment found that the program is free of major design
flaws, has a clear purpose, and is reasonably well-managed.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cumulative number
of assays that have
been validated.
FY 2007
Actual
3/20
FY 2007
Target
8/20
FY 2008
Target
13/20
FY 2009
Target
14/19
Units
Assays
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Contract cost
reduction per study
for assay validation
efforts in the
Endocrine
Disrupters
Screening Program
FY 2007
Actual
63
FY 2007
Target
1
FY 2008
Target
1
FY 2009
Target
1
Units
Percent
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.
We anticipate that the FY 2007 actual will be below the target because the program experienced
scientific and technical problems that could not have been predicted on several assays (e.g.,
estrogen receptor binding, androgen receptor binding and fish screen), 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).
Several of the assays that were expected to be completed by the end of this fiscal year, however,
are either in peer review (the final stage of the validation process), or are scheduled to begin peer
review early in FY 2008.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$56.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$38.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
427
-------
• (-$2,910.0) This decrease returns the program to historic levels for the Endocrine
Disrupter program. The change will not impact long-term scheduled work for
completing validation of screening and testing assays. The screening and testing of
assays was delayed due to inherent scientific uncertainties associated with assay
development and validation processes.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CERCLA; SARA; OP A; SOW A; CAA; CWA; TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; EPCRA; ODA;
PPA.
428
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$44,701.7
$44,701.7
237.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$45,046.0
$45,046.0
241.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$45,672.0
$45,672.0
241.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$46,477.0
$46,477.0
241.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$805.0
$805.0
0.0
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:
• Screening of high production volume chemicals under the High Production Volume
(HPV) Challenge program and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) Program, critical elements
of new U.S. commitments under the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North
America to assess and initiate needed action on the over 9 thousand existing chemicals
produced in quantities above 25 thousand pounds per year in the U.S.;
• The Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP);
• Reviewing and reducing risks of other industrial/commercial chemicals of concern under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including the New Chemicals Program
(which focuses on reviewing and, as necessary, managing the health and environmental
risks of chemicals being introduced into the United States marketplace), assessment of
nanoscale materials associated with new and existing chemicals, the 2010/15
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Stewardship Program (launched in January 2006), and
the development of Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs).
These programs reduce and prevent unreasonable risks to human health and the environment
from new and existing chemicals and increase the efficiency of risk review and reduction efforts.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program and the Security and Prosperity Partnership
(SPP)
In FY 2009, EPA will continue work initiated in FY 2007 to evaluate the screening level
chemical hazard data obtained through the landmark U.S. HPV Challenge Program and
companion Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Screening
Information Data Set (SIDS) Program, combined with the expanded exposure information
429
-------
reported under the 2006 TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (IUR), leading to development of
risk-based prioritization decisions for HPV chemicals (defined as one million pounds or more
per year produced or imported). Similar work was initiated in FY 2008 and will continue in
2009 to develop prioritization documents on Moderate Production Volume (MPV) chemicals
(25,000 to one million pounds per year). This work is included in the August 2007 SPP
agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, under which the U.S. committed to assess and
initiate action on over 9,000 HPV and MPV chemicals by 2012. The documents identify needed
actions on chemicals presenting potential risks.
Actions initiated by EPA could involve voluntary information collection, chemical testing or risk
reduction efforts and regulatory actions such as Significant New Use Rules (SNURs), Section 4
Test Rules, or other rules to prevent unreasonable risks. EPA will more than double its
production of HPV risk-based decisions in FY 2009. Industry will contribute to the 3,000 HPV
chemical components of the SPP commitments through the industry-led Extended High
Production Volume Challenge Program (EHPV), which focuses on approximately 500 chemicals
that achieved HPV status after the HPV Challenge Program had commenced.
EPA will allocate $10.8 million to this work area in FY 2009. For more information on the HPV
Challenge Program and the SPP commitments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/hpv/index.htm.
Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP)
In FY 2009, EPA expects that all voluntary testing and assessments for the 20 chemicals in the
VCCEP Pilot Program will be completed, with most of the assessments having been completed
before the end of FY 2008. During FY 2008 and FY 2009, 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 2009 and beyond. EPA expects that a
significant portion of the operational costs of VCCEP peer consultations will be shifted from
EPA to companies sponsoring chemicals in the program beginning in FY 2009.
EPA will devote $544 thousand to this work area in FY 2009. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/vccep/index.htm.
Other Chemicals of Concern Under TSCA
Remaining resources in this program are devoted to reviewing and reducing risks of other
chemicals of concern under TSCA, including review of new chemicals before they enter
commerce. In FY 2009, EPA will continue its successful record of preventing the entry of
chemicals that pose unreasonable risks 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, 40
products of biotechnology, and new chemical nanoscale materials prior to their entry into the
marketplace. To measure performance under this program, EPA adopted in FY 2006 (with a FY
2004 baseline) a long-term measure establishing a "zero tolerance" performance standard for the
number of new chemicals or microorganisms introduced into commerce that pose an
unreasonable risk to workers, consumers, or the environment. The Agency has achieved the 100
430
-------
percent goal in all four years that the measure has been tracked (FY 2004 to FY 2007). For
more information visit www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.
Nanoscale Materials
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to implement its voluntary Nanoscale Materials Stewardship
Program for new and existing chemical nanoscale materials that are subject to TSCA
requirements. EPA will focus on analyzing the data it has received through the program to
understand which nanoscale materials are produced, in what quantities, and what other risk-
related data are available. EPA will use this information to understand whether certain nanoscale
materials may present risks to human health and the environment and warrant further assessment,
testing or other action. In FY 2009, EPA will also prepare for the evaluation step of the
program. EPA will issue an interim report that will describe the types of data received and how
the data are being used. EPA will then develop a more detailed evaluation in the year 2010
regarding how the stewardship program addressed the objectives identified for the program.
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 is its work on
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). PFOA is an essential processing aid in the manufacture of
fluoropolymers, substances with special properties that have thousands of important
manufacturing and industrial applications, and fluorinated telomers, which may be a breakdown
product of other related chemicals. EPA will continue to evaluate and implement PFOA risk
management actions, as indicated based on the results of ongoing risk assessment and testing
under Enforceable Consent Agreements (EGAs) and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with
industry. The final report of the EGA regarding incineration testing of telomer composites is due
in July 2008, and the fluoropolymer EGA report is due in October of 2009. The 3M Company
MOU peer consultations process, which will help evaluate the environmental monitoring
information developed under this MOU, is underway and likely to continue into FY 2009. The
DuPont Corporation MOU peer consultation process has also begun, but the review itself will
occur primarily in FY 2009.
In FY 2009, EPA will continue its own direct telomer biodegradation research testing, as well as
the testing of fluoropolymer and fluorotelomer consumer articles to determine whether they
contain PFOA and are capable of releasing PFOA as they age in use. Also, the Agency launched
a global PFOA Stewardship Program in January 2006 for U.S. fluoropolymer and telomer
manufacturers. Eight major manufacturers of these chemicals have agreed to participate.
Participating companies have committed to reduce PFOA emissions and product content by 95
percent no later than 2010, and to work toward eliminating PFOA emissions and product content
no later than 2015. EPA received the first progress reports from companies participating in the
PFOA Stewardship Program in October, 2007. Significant progress towards these goals is
expected in FY 2009. The Agency will receive annual updates through 2015. For more
information, visit www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa.
431
-------
An aspect of the Existing Chemicals program's work that has direct impact on the nation's
homeland security is the development of values for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs).
Emergency planners and first responders use AEGLs to prepare for and deal with chemical
emergencies by determining safe exposure levels. Following September 11, 2001, a series of
investments in the Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery chemical program
augmented resources to support accelerated development of Proposed AEGL values. Beginning
in FY 2009 the program will shift emphasis towards elevating Proposed values to Interim and
ultimately Final status via peer review by the National Academies of Science. Accordingly, in
FY 2009 the program plans to develop Proposed AEGL values for 18 additional chemicals,
compared with 33 in FY 2007 and 23 in FY 2006, but will remain on target to meet its long-term
goal of developing Proposed AEGL values for 287 chemicals by 2011. In addition, Final values
will be completed for at least six additional chemicals in FY 2009.
EPA will allocate $34.5 million to reviewing and reducing risks of these other chemicals of
concern under TSCA in FY 2009. For more information visit www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl.
The Chemical Risk Review and Reduction Program was evaluated through PART in 2007,
resulting in a Moderately Effective rating and the third highest points rating of all EPA programs
assessed to date. The program is implementing PART Program Improvement Follow-Up
Actions to enhance and develop additional outcome measures to add to its already robust
portfolio of sound and effective measures, including a biomonitoring measure drawing on data
collected by CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Annual number of
chemicals with
proposed values for
Acute Exposure
Guidelines Levels
(AEGL)
FY 2007
Actual
33
FY 2007
Target
24
FY 2008
Target
24
FY 2009
Target
18
Units
Chemicals
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Reduction in the
current year
production-adj usted
risk-based score of
releases and
transfers of toxic
chemicals from
manufacturing
facilities.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
4
FY 2008
Target
3.5
FY 2009
Target
3.2
Units
Percent RSEI
Rel Risk
432
-------
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percent reduction
from baseline year
in average cost of
Toxic Substance
Control Act 8(e)
processing and
searches.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
7
FY 2009
Target
5
Units
Reduction
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Reduction in cost of
managing
PreManufacture
Notice (PMN)
submissions through
the Focus meeting
as a percentage of
baseline year cost
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
61
Units
Percent
Reduction
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Cumulative number
of High Production
Volume (HPV)
chemicals with
Screening Level
Hazard
Characterization
Reports completed.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
1260
FY 2009
Target
1585
Units
HPV
Chemicals
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percent reduction
from baseline year
in total EPA cost per
chemical for which
proposed AEGL
value sets are
developed.
FY 2007
Actual
12.6
FY 2007
Target
2
FY 2008
Target
4
FY 2009
Target
6
Units
Percent Cost
Savings
433
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Cumulative
number of High
Production
Volume (HPV)
chemicals with
Risk Based
Decisions
Completed.
FY 2007
Actual
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2008
Target
150
FY 2009
Target
490
Units
HPV
Chemicals
The cumulative and annual number of chemicals with proposed values for AEGLs supports the
Homeland Security program area. This program has consistently exceeded its performance
targets reflecting significantly greater than expected progress in developing Proposed AEGL
values due in part to unanticipated opportunities to develop values for categories of similar
chemicals. The AEGL Program has exceeded its annual performance target of 24 Proposed
AEGL values by completing 33 chemicals in FY 2007. Cumulative results demonstrate a total of
218 proposed AEGLs completed and demonstrate significant progress towards completing 287
chemicals by 2011. In FY 2009, the program is shifting its emphasis to interim and final status
AEGLs, which explains the reduction in the target for developing proposed values from 2008 to
2009.
The cumulative and annual reductions in the production-adjusted risk-based score of releases and
transfers of toxic chemicals from manufacturing facilities measures track EPA's progress in
reducing risks from chemicals under TSCA. These measures are based on the Risk Screening
Environmental Indicator (RSEI) model, which calculates a risk index based on releases of Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals. The Agency's long-term strategic target is to achieve a 50
percent cumulative reduction of RSEI chronic human health risk index by 2011. Data received
through FY 2005 indicate a 29.3 percent reduction in the RSEI score. The decline curve for
RSEI decreases is expected to become less steep over time. Accordingly, annual targets are
more ambitious in FY 2006 (4.5 percent) than they are in 2011 (2.5 percent). TRI data are
subject to a two-year data lag, which means this measure has a corresponding delay in reporting
on results. FY 2006 performance results will be available for the FY 2008 Performance and
Accountability Report.
A subset of the overall RSEI measure examines the cumulative and annual reductions in the
production-adjusted risk-based score of releases and transfers of High Production Volume (HPV)
chemicals. These measures look at the RSEI score for a subset of 200 HPV chemicals that are
reported through the TRI. A long-term target of 45 percent cumulative reduction is set for 2011.
The data from TRI are also subject to a two-year data lag, which means this measure has the
same delay in reporting on results as the RSEI measure above. FY 2006 performance results will
be available for the FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report.
A supporting annual measure for the HPV program tracks the cumulative number of High
Production Volume (HPV) chemicals with Screening Level Hazard Characterization reports
completed. This measure tracks Hazard Characterization reports for both U.S. and
internationally assessed chemicals. The program has set an ambitious target to complete
434
-------
Screening Level Hazard Characterization reports for 2,750 HPV chemicals by 2012. In FY
2007, reports were completed for 301 HPV chemicals, exceeding the FY 2007 target of 259 and
bringing cumulative progress to 931 chemicals.
The AEGL program shares resources with the "Homeland Security: Preparedness, Prevention
and Response" and "Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction" programs.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,172.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1,225.0) This reduces congressionally-directed funding in the FY 2008 omnibus for
HPV and VCCEP. The reduction will not impact long-term targets.
• (+$858.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs. Funding will support HPV and VCCEP programs as well as other
priority toxic chemical reviews.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA.
435
-------
Pollution Prevention Program
Program Area: Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$17,548.6
$17,548.6
87.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$19,935.0
$19,935.0
88.6
FY 2008
Enacted
$16,362.0
$16,362.0
88.6
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$18,398.0
$18,398.0
86.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,036.0
$2,036.0
-2.0
Program Project Description:
The Pollution Prevention (P2) 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 2009 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 2009, EPA will continue to provide leadership to implement EPP
efforts in partnership with other Federal agencies, notably to continue to implement, add new
federal partners, and measure the benefits of the Federal Electronics Challenge and to promote
the use of the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT), a procurement tool
designed to help institutional purchasers compare and select desktop computers, laptops,
monitors, and other equipment based on environmental attributes. FY 2009 work on EPEAT
will involve the development, through a consensus-based stakeholder process, of new standards
for additional electronic products, likely including televisions, imaging equipment, mobile
devices and/or servers. The program also will implement a partnership with the General Services
Administration (GSA) to continue to "green" government meetings.
EPA will allocate $4.4 million to this work area in FY
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/pubs/about/about.htm for more information.
2009.
See
436
-------
Green Suppliers Network
Through this program, EPA partners with large manufacturers to help small and medium-sized
suppliers identify opportunities to "lean and clean" their operations. These activities help
suppliers save money and reduce their environmental impacts. The Green Suppliers Network
will continue to partner with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program and state pollution prevention programs to
deploy the program across the nation's largest manufacturing supply chains. In FY 2009 the
program will work to train states and MEP centers delivering the Green Suppliers Network
reviews on the latest "lean and clean" tools to ensure that reviews are consistent and making use
of the most advanced techniques. The Green Suppliers Network will also in FY 2009 continue
to strengthen its measurement efforts by implementing a results algorithm to support reporting
rigorous and defensible program results.
As part of the program's continuing focus on emerging issues and chemicals of national concern,
the program will work with the automobile industry, under its Suppliers' Partnership for the
Environment organization, to develop a framework through which EPA risk screening tools can
be used by suppliers to make more informed decisions regarding chemical use and substitutions.
The program will also work with the Department of Energy to coordinate the "lean and clean"
activities of the Green Suppliers Network with the energy efficiency technical assistance of
DOE's Industrial Assessment Centers.
EPA will allocate $3.3 million to this work area in FY 2009. 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. In FY 2009 the Green Chemistry program will continue to administer
the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge and associated award ceremony and will focus on
the development of environmentally preferable substitutes for chemicals of national concern.
EPA will allocate $2.4 million to this work area in FY 2009. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemi stry/.
Design for the Environment
The Design for the Environment (DfE) Program works in partnership with a broad range of
stakeholders to reduce chemical risks to people and the environment by preventing pollution
through development and assessment of safer alternatives. DfE convenes partners, including
industry representatives and environmental groups, to evaluate the human health and
environmental considerations, performance, and cost of traditional and alternative technologies,
materials, and processes. As incentives for participation and driving change, DfE offers unique
technical tools, methodologies, and expertise. EPA's DfE program has reached more than
437
-------
200,000 business facilities and approximately two million workers, reducing the use of
chemicals of concern by approximately 205 million pounds per year.
In FY 2009, DfE will continue collaborating with industry and non-governmental organizations
in two focus areas to reduce risk from chemicals. First, DfE's Formulator Program encourages
partners to reformulate products to be environmentally safer, cost competitive, and effective. By
providing chemical and toxicological information and suggesting safer substitutes, the
Formulator Program reduced an estimated 57 million pounds of chemicals of concern in 2006,
up from 40 million pounds in 2005. DfE is now working with the consumer cleaning products
sector. Large chemical volumes are used in this sector, with the potential for substantial
population and environmental exposures that can be reduced through reformulation.
Second, DfE will continue to conduct Alternatives Analysis to Inform Substitution to safer
chemicals. In FY 2009 DfE will leverage partnerships with the electronics, wire and cable,
polyurethane foam, chemical product formulation, furniture, and photovoltaic industries to help
move these industries toward the manufacture, processing and use of safer chemicals, reducing
the likelihood of unintended environmental and human health effects and associated liabilities.
DfE partnerships will help these industries move away from substances that are considered
health and environmental hazards, including lead, chromium, diisocyanates, and certain flame
retardants, and to ensure the transition to alternative chemical substances that are safer for human
health and the environment.
EPA expects these new partnerships to produce measurable results in FY 2009, 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 158 million pounds of lead per year with safer lead-free solder alternatives.
In FY 2009, the related Green Engineering Program will continue partnerships with industries,
states 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
example, the Green Engineering Program is collaborating with the FDA, academia, and industry
on regional workshops to advance the incorporation of green engineering approaches and tools in
pharmaceutical processes with an aim towards reducing their environmental impact. The
program also partners with the Center for Sustainable Engineering, which was established via
NSF funding, to further disseminate green engineering educational materials that were developed
through the Green Engineering Program. EPA will allocate $3.2 million to this work area in FY
2009.
Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare (PSH)
This voluntary program, formerly known as the Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E)
Program with more than 1,250 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. Under the PSH Program, EPA will continue to coordinate
agency work that improves the environmental performance of the healthcare sector by providing
technical expertise and facilitating cooperative working relationships with other programs such
438
-------
as Energy Star, Green Suppliers Network and EPEAT while the independent PSH organization
continues to provide outreach, education, and recognition programs. In its current capacity, PSH
is participating in EPA rule making workgroups in the area of pharmaceutical waste
management. In addition, because significant amounts of the mercury found in air deposition in
the U.S. originate in other countries, EPA is directing a series of pilot healthcare mercury
reduction programs on an international scale, including programs in China, Argentina, Taiwan,
India and Central America.
EPA will allocate $160 thousand to this work area in FY 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pollutionprevention/pubs/h2e.htm.
P2 Technical Assistance
For more information, visit
As directed by the Pollution Prevention Act, the P2 program devotes considerable effort towards
assisting industry (primarily small and medium sized businesses), government and the public in
implementing pollution prevention solutions to chemical risk and other environmental protection
challenges. In addition to the P2 Grants to States and Tribes and the P2Rx programs described
under the companion Categorical Grants: Pollution Prevention program project, resources under
this program are made available to a wide variety of applicants through Source Reduction
Assistance (SRA) grants issued annually through EPA's Regional Offices. Thirty four SRA
Grants were awarded in FY 2007, with similar numbers of awards anticipated in FY 2008 and
F Y 2009, supporting P2 solutions resulting in energy and water conservation, reduction of green
house gases, and a wide variety of reduction in the use of hazardous materials and generation of
other pollutants. Projects include Healthy Schools initiatives, toxics use reduction training,
home and business light bulb replacement, mining operation improvement, state agency staff
training, safer health care delivery, groundwater protection, and greening meetings, conferences,
and buildings. EPA will allocate $5.0 million of EPM resources to this work area in FY 2009,
augmented by $4.9 million of P2 Categorical Grant resources.
EPA's Pollution Prevention Program underwent PART review in 2006 and received a
"moderately effective" rating and the third highest point rating awarded to EPA programs
through that date, 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, all
of which will be brought to completion prior to and during FY 2009.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Business, institutional
and government costs
reduced by P2
program participants.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
45.9 M
FY 2009
Target
67.8 M
Units
Dollars
Saved
439
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of hazardous
materials reduced by
P2 program
participants.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
429 M
FY 2009
Target
494 M
Units
Pounds
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Percent change from
baseline in
reductions of Design
for the Environment
(DfE) chemicals of
concern per federal
dollars invested in
the DfE program.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
3
FY 2009
Target
4
Units
Percentage
The Pollution Prevention Program has two PART-approved performance measures and two
GPRA measures that are directly linked to its own interventions. 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.
The P2 Program has made significant progress towards meeting long-term goals for 2011
outlined within PART and the Agency's Strategic plan.
• The P2 program has set a long term target to reduce 4.5 billion pounds of hazardous
materials. Data currently available indicate 2 billion pounds of hazardous materials have
been reduced since FY 2000.
• Significant progress has also been made in meeting the long term target to save $792
million in business, government, and institutional costs as the P2 program has saved $178
million since 2002.
• The P2 Program has achieved more than half of its long term target to reduce, conserve
or offset 31.5 trillion BTUs by reducing 8 trillion BTUs since 2002.
• The P2 Program also has made progress in meeting the long term target to reduce 19
billion gallons of water use by reducing 9.4 billion gallons of water since 2000.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-2.0 FTE) This reduction reflects a transition of pollution prevention programs to the
private sector.
440
-------
• (+$1,814.0) This increase will restore funding for grants and projects necessary to pursue
2011 Agency strategic targets for reductions of 4.5 billion pounds of hazardous materials
use, 31.5 trillion BTUs of energy use, 220 million gallons of water use, and $792 million
in business, government and institutional costs.
• (+$26.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
• (+$196.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
Statutory Authority:
PPA and TSCA.
441
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$8,249.6
$8,249.6
51.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,654.0
$5,654.0
33.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,585.0
$5,585.0
33.4
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$6,027.0
$6,027.0
33.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$442.0
$442.0
0.0
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 these chemicals
were introduced into the environment before their risks were known. These chemicals include
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and asbestos/fibers. The Chemical Risk
Management program focuses on providing assistance to Federal agencies and others with
responsibility for ensuring proper use of PCBs, reducing or eliminating the use of devices
containing mercury, and implementing statutory requirements to address asbestos risks in
schools.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
In FY 2009, 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 also will consider any possible
regulatory changes to address manufacturing processes that inadvertently generate PCBs as well
as review existing use authorizations as needed. Some uses of PCB's are relatively old and
could benefit from being revisited. Assessments will determine whether some existing uses need
to be phased out.
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 United States on May 23,
2001 and which entered into force without U.S. ratification on May 17, 2004. The passage of
legislation to implement the Stockholm Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Treaty is a priority
for EPA. Upon ratification, EPA will, among other requirements, take action to meet
Convention obligations on PCBs in electrical equipment by 2025.
442
-------
Mercury
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to promote the reduction of mercury use in products, both
domestically and internationally. The program maintains its work with the states and relevant
stakeholders to create strategies for addressing the use of mercury in products such as measuring
devices (e.g., thermostats and thermometers, switches and relays) and lighting. The program will
implement as appropriate regulatory and educational programs to achieve the Agency's goal of
addressing mercury exposure from use and disposal of mercury-containing products. The
program will work through the states or through existing federal programs, including voluntary
efforts with the private sector, to phase out the use of mercury in products where viable
alternatives exist.
The program continues to update and expand its mercury use and products database. This
database identifies potential products containing mercury and product alternatives and will help
identify opportunities for risk reduction efforts including collaborative efforts to reduce the use
of mercury.
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to implement its activities under the United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP) Mercury Partnerships. Under these global mercury partnerships, the Agency is
helping to promote the use of non-mercury products, develop mercury products inventory
assessments and databases, and implement mercury-free programs in hospitals, schools and other
sectors around the world. The program will continue to track mercury reductions from the
UNEP mercury partnerships and build from successful pilots and lessons learned from these
projects.
Asbestos/Fibers
The Agency will continue its outreach and technical assistance under the asbestos program for
schools, in coordination with other Federal agencies, states, and organizations such as the
National Parent-Teachers Association, and the National Education Association. EPA also will
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
comply with the Model Accreditation Plan requirements. For more information, visit
www. epa. gov/oppt.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's objective to prevent and reduce chemical risks to
humans, communities, and ecosystems. Currently, there are no performance measures specific to
this program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$186.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
443
-------
• (+$256.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
across programs.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA; ASHAA; AHERA; AIA.
444
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$12,589.8
$12,589.8
76.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$13,546.0
$13,546.0
87.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$13,335.0
$13,335.0
87.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$13,652.0
$13,652.0
87.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$317.0
$317.0
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.
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; maintain a national infrastructure of lead remediation professionals trained and
certified to implement those standards; and provide information to housing occupants so they can
make informed decisions about lead hazards in their homes. See
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/index.html for more information.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009 EPA will implement a final regulation and a comprehensive program to address lead
hazards created by renovation, repair and painting activities in homes with lead-based paint. To
implement the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule, EPA will accredit training providers
in all non-authorized states, tribes and territories; review state applications for authorization to
administer training and certification programs; provide oversight and guidance to all authorized
programs; and continue to disseminate model training courses for lead-safe work practices.
Additionally, a significant outreach program will be implemented to support the RRP regulation
including:
• Comprehensive education efforts aimed at all regulated parties including states, tribes,
and territories
• Informing the regulated community about the improved test kits developed by the
program in FY 2007 and 2008; and
• Providing assistance for complying with the RRP rule requirements.
445
-------
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 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. EPA will continue these efforts as work progresses on virtually eliminating childhood
lead poisoning by 2010.
In addition, EPA will continue to provide support to the National Lead Information Center
(NLIC) to disseminate information to the public primarily in electronic form. The Agency also
will support HUD's lead hazard control program by ensuring that all contractors who identify or
abate lead and lead hazards as part of HUD's Lead-Based Paint Grant Program are properly
trained and certified.
The Lead program underwent its first PART assessment in FY 2005, receiving a "moderately
effective" rating and the third highest points rating of all EPA programs assessed through that
date. 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
20 days of EPA effort to process).
Through the PART Improvement Plan process, EPA improved the consistency of grantee and
regional accountability and the linkage between program funding and program goals with an
emphasis on program grant and contractor funding. In FY 2009, the Agency will implement
recently completed PART follow-up actions to improve measures used in the State Grant
Reporting Template and further improve results reporting from program partners. 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
20 days of EPA
effort to process.
FY 2007
Actual
92
FY 2007
Target
90
FY 2008
Target
91
FY 2009
Target
92
Units
Certif/Refund
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of cases of
children (aged 1-5
years) with elevated
blood lead levels
(>10ug/dl).
FY 2007
Actual
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2008
Target
90,000
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
Units
Children
446
-------
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 2007
Actual
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
FY 2008
Target
29
FY 2009
Target
No Target
Estab-
lished
Units
Percent
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. In FY 2007, this measure was revised to measure EPA processing time only,
which resulted in a reduction in the number of days to process applications, from 40 days to 20
days. Since 2004, the percent of applicants processed under 20 days has increased from 77 to 92
percent. The FY 2008 and 2009 targets sustain this high level of achievement.
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 May 2005, NHANES released 1999-2002 data which estimated 310,000
cases of children with elevated blood lead levels, demonstrating a continued downward trend
towards reaching EPA's long-term target of zero cases by 2010. In 2006 EPA's goal was to
lower the amount to 216,000 cases, and in 2008 the goal is to lower to 90,000 cases. The Fourth
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals is expected in the summer of
2008, at which time 2004 actual data will be available. CDC historical data are showing a
slower rate of progress over time, reflecting increased challenges associated with reaching
remaining vulnerable populations.
The program's second annual performance measure is also based on NHANES data and
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 long-term
goal, reflected in the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, is to close the gap between the geometric means
of blood lead levels among children of low income families versus children of non-low-income
families, from a baseline percentage difference of 37 percent (1991-1994), to a difference of 28
percent by the year 2010. In May 2005, NHANES released data which estimated the disparity of
blood lead levels between low-income and non-low income children at 32 percent. Actual data
for 2006 is expected in 2009, at which time it will be clearer if EPA reached its goal of lowering
the disparity to 29 percent.
447
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$405.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$88.0) This change is the net of the restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs, and savings from efficiencies.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA.
448
-------
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
449
-------
LUST / UST
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$9,836.7
$14,996.1
$24,832.8
112.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$11,719.0
$10,558.0
$22,277.0
131.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$11,572.0
$11,968.0
$23,540.0
131.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$12,256.0
$10,548.0
$22,804.0
132.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$684.0
($1,420.0)
($736.0)
0.7
Program Project Description:
EPA works with states, tribes and Intertribal Consortia to prevent, detect, and clean up 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 such as benzene, or methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether
(MTBE) in gasoline further underscores EPA's and the states' emphasis on promoting
compliance with all UST requirements, including the requirements described in the Energy
Policy Act (EPAct)67 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.68
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 UST 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
will use EPM funds to carry out EPA's responsibilities under Title XV, Subtitle B of the EPAct.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The EPAct contains numerous provisions that significantly affect Federal and state UST
programs. The EPAct requires that EPA and states strengthen tank release prevention programs,
through such activities as: mandatory inspections every three years for all underground storage
tanks, operator training, prohibition of delivery for non-complying facilities and secondary
containment or financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and installers69. In FY 2009, EPA
will continue to focus attention on the need to bring all UST systems into compliance and keep
67 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.
68 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST/20complv.htm and http://www.epa.gov/OUST/20tnkprf.htm.
69 For more information on these and other activities please refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/final_fr.htm.
450
-------
them in compliance with the release detection and release prevention requirements. These
activities include assisting states in conducting inspections and assisting other Federal agencies
to improve their compliance at UST facilities.
In FY 2009, EPA will continue promoting cross-media opportunities to support 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 assistance to states developing new
requirements to implement the EPAct requirements, and will provide training opportunities and
assistance tools to better prepare UST inspectors and better inform UST owners. The training
modules70 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.
EPA has the primary responsibility for implementation of the UST Program in Indian country
and to maintain information on USTs located in Indian country. EPA also will implement the
UST Tribal strategy71 developed in FY 2006, including developing regulatory requirements for
secondary containment, delivery prohibition, and operator training 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 emergence of
alternative fuels containing ethanol poses several challenges for the UST program, requiring
information, education, and innovative policy solutions.
The UST (prevention) program received an overall PART rating of "moderately effective" in
2006. As a component of the program's improvement plan, EPA worked with its state partners
to develop an efficiency measure of the annual confirmed releases per the annual underground
storage tanks leak prevention costs.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Increase the rate of
significant
operational
compliance by 1%
over the previous
year's target.
FY 2007
Actual
63
FY 2007
Target
67
FY 2008
Target
68
FY 2009
Target
69
Units
percent
70 UST-LUST Virtual Classroom, http://www.epa.gov/swerust 1 /virtual.htm,
71
Refer to Strategy for an EPA/Tribal Partnership to Implement Section 1529offthe EPAct of 2005, August 2006,
EPA-510-F-06-005, http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/fmal ts.htm.
451
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
No more than 10,000
confirmed releases per
year.
FY 2007
Actual
7,570
FY 2007
Target
<10,000
FY 2008
Target
<10,000
FY 2009
Target
<10,000
Units
UST releases
Work under this program supports EPA's objectives under Goal 3. The program has set a
challenging and ambitious goal of increasing significant operational compliance (SOC) by 1
percent per year from the 2004 baseline of 64 percent. The program did not meet the GPRA goal
for the SOC rate in FY 2007 because some states inspected previously uninspected facilities in
response to the EPAct. States found that many previously uninspected facilities did not comply
with requirements. This likely contributed to the lower compliance rate.
The program also measures confirmed releases reported each year, with a goal of fewer than
10,000 releases each year. Between FYs 1999 and 2007, confirmed UST releases averaged
9,052. In FY 2007, there were 7,570 confirmed UST releases.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$427.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$257.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across the program.
• (+0.7 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
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); and the 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.
452
-------
Program Area: Water: Ecosystems
453
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$24,296.7
$24,296.7
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$35,000.0
$35,000.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$34,454.0
$34,454.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$35,000.0
$35,000.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$546. 0
$546.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Great Lakes Legacy Act Program cleans up contaminated sediments in the U.S. or bi-
national Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs). An AOC is a geographic area that fails to meet
the objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement where such failure has caused or is
likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or of the area's ability to support aquatic life. 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.72 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The total contaminated sediment remediation need in the Great Lakes as of 1997 is estimated to
have been about 46 million cubic yards.73 Reporting in 2009 is expected to show that EPA and
its partners will have remediated a cumulative total of 5.5 million cubic yards of contaminated
sediments from calendar year 1997, when tracking began, through calendar year 2008.
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.ijc.org/php/publications/html/sedrem.html.
73 USEPA-Great Lakes National Program Office. December 2006. Unpublished Report in Great Lakes National
Program Office Sediment Files.
454
-------
Remediation from Legacy Act projects will contribute to this growing total. In FY 2009, EPA
expects to support two to four Legacy Act projects for remediation. These projects are expected
to clean up some three hundred fifty thousand cubic yards of contaminated sediments over the
project lifetimes. Project lifetimes are expected to be from six months to several years. The
Great Lakes Legacy Act rule outlines how projects are prioritized to remediate contaminated
sediments in the Great Lakes AOCs.
(See www.epa.gov/glla for more information.)
Volume of Sediment Remediated
via the Great Lakes Legacy Act Program
(as of 09/30/07)
600,000
2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
2008
2009
Source: USEPA - Great Lakes National Program Office, December 2007.
74
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Cubic yards of
contaminated
sediment remediated
(cumulative) in the
Great Lakes.
FY 2007
Actual
4.5
FY 2007
Target
4.5
FY 2008
Target
5.5
FY 2009
Target
5.5
Units
Million
Cubic Yards
Volume of Sediment Remediated in the Great Lakes Legacy Act Program. December 2007. Available from Great Lakes
National Program Office Sediment Files. Projections are based on a cost-based formula for 2008 and 2009. Some of the
remediation expected to occur in 2006 was delayed, resulting in lower-than-expected results for 2006 and higher-than-expected
remediation for 2007.
455
-------
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Cost per cubic yard
of contaminated
sediments
remediated.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
200
Units
Dollars/
Cubic Yard
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.75 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 contaminated sediments in Great Lakes AOCs.
The EPA Great Lakes Program received an "adequate" PART rating in 2007.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$546.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects.
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; U.S.-Canada Agreements.
USEPA-Great Lakes National Program Office. Sediment Remediation. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/sediments/remediateb.html.
456
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$21,474.8
$21,474.8
50.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$17,203.0
$17,203.0
53.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$26,779.0
$26,779.0
53.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$17,239.0
$17,239.0
48.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($9,540.0)
($9,540.0)
-5.0
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 the 28 National Estuary Programs' (NEPs): (1) continued implementation of
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) and (2) implementation
of Clean Water Act (CWA) core programs in their estuarine ecosystems;
• Coastal monitoring and assessment, including the continued issuance of National Coastal
Condition Reports; and
• Supporting non-NEP coastal watershed efforts to address major threats to the health of
estuary/coastal waters and coastal watersheds, including such activities as targeting
hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, assisting communities and/or organizations to find
financing for coastal protection and restoration, smart growth and green infrastructure,
and adaptation to climate change by estuaries.
(See http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ for more information.)
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The resources in FY 2009 will support EPA's goal of protecting our national estuaries of
significance and other estuarine/coastal watersheds, and protecting and restoring additional acres
of habitat in NEP study areas. This work will be undertaken in partnership with states, tribes,
coastal communities and others. Estuarine and coastal waters are among the most
environmentally and economically valuable resources in the nation.
457
-------
The National Estuary Program
In FY 2009, EPA will continue support of the National Estuary Program, including $7,432,000
in CWA Section 320 grants for the 28 NEPs ($265,400 per NEP) to continue to support this
flagship watershed protection program to help address continuing and emerging threats to the
nation's estuarine resources.1 This includes continued support of CCMP implementation as well
as implementation by NEPs of CWA core programs. Specifically, EPA's activities include:
• Supporting continuing efforts of all 28 NEP estuaries to maintain their leadership in
promoting environmental sustainability through implementation of their CCMPs, which
target protection and restoration of estuarine resources, including conducting fiscal and
programmatic oversight and performance evaluation of CCMP implementation.
• Supporting efforts to achieve the EPA habitat restoration and protection goal of 250,000
additional acres by 2012.
One growing concern in U.S. coastal watersheds is the effects of climate change, such as sea
level rise, changes in precipitation, increases in intensity of and damage from storms, and
changes in commercial and ecologically significant species. EPA will begin work with our NEP
partners and other coastal watersheds to identify, develop, and communicate about programs that
already reduce the effects of climate change or could be modified to better address those effects;
e.g., promote appropriate "climate-ready estuaries" by engaging coastal communities in
planning, development, and implementation of activities to reduce energy use and adapt to
climate change.
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 began testing the system in
FY 2006 and moved to full-scale implementation in FY 2007. The program has developed more
ambitious targets for its annual and long-term measures regarding the number of acres protected
and restored. In addition, we have improved our NEP implementation review program, now
known as the Performance Evaluation Review process, to make it more objective and consistent.
The comprehensive triennial reviews of each NEP evaluate the progress an NEP has made in
reaching environmental and programmatic goals; enhancements will make the reviews more
useful in future funding decisions as well as in future PART evaluations.
Acreage-related opportunities for habitat restoration and protection are expected to diminish over
time due to the fixed boundaries of NEPs. Also, population growth and increased pressure on
coastal resources present significant challenges to improvements in estuarine habitat quality.
The means and strategies outlined here for achieving the Increase Wetlands sub-objective must be viewed in tandem with the
means and strategies outlined under the Improve Ocean and Coastal Waters sub-objective. The Improve Ocean and Coastal
Waters sub-objective contains strategic measures for EPA's vessel discharge, dredged material management, ocean disposal, and
other ocean and coastal programs, which are integral to the Agency's efforts to facilitating the ecosystem scale protection and
restoration of natural areas.
458
-------
The PART improvement plan calls for EPA to set ambitious long-term and annual acreage
targets for the NEPs and their partners, and EPA has responded to that challenge.
Coastal Monitoring and Assessment
EPA, working with Federal, state, and local partners, will continue to track the health of coastal
waters and progress in meeting NEP/Coastal Watershed strategic targets by issuing future
editions of a National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR), supporting efforts to monitor and
assess U.S. coastal waters, and developing additional indicators of coastal ecosystem health. The
NCCR is the only statistically-significant measure of coastal water quality on nationwide and
regional scales, and includes indices covering coastal water quality, sediment quality, benthic
condition, coastal habitat, 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.
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.
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. 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.
Other Coastal Watersheds
In FY 2009, EPA will continue other coastal watershed work, including:
• Gulf Hypoxia. EPA's role in implementing the Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and
Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (Plan) will not only require overall
leadership in coordinating activities among Federal and state agencies, but also places
EPA in the lead role for several specific actions in the plan. One key action involves
Federal strategies that provide a framework for state nutrient strategies. EPA's role in
this action will include identification of key strategies and coordination of existing EPA
efforts. These strategies may include TMDL, nutrient criteria, and standards
development, as well as point source, wetlands, and air deposition activities that are
aligned with the need to reduce the size of the Gulf Dead Zone. EPA staff leads the Gulf
Hypoxia Task Force Communications Sub-Committee and in FY 2009 will continue to
develop Annual Operating Plans and Annual Reports that track progress and increase
awareness about Gulf of Mexico hypoxia-related progress and barriers along with other
stakeholder outreach and education efforts. Other critical activities requiring ongoing
EPA leadership and coordination include: providing support for the sub-basin teams,
coordination of Mississippi River-Atchafalaya River Basin monitoring activities, and
enhanced research and modeling to identify the highest opportunity watersheds for
nutrient reductions.
459
-------
• Financing Coastal Protection and Restoration: Successful coastal management requires
secure finances. The year-to-year unpredictability of grant funding, increased pressures
on coastal natural resources from growing populations, and the need to develop
sustainable solutions to coastal environmental challenges require development of new
funding strategies for coastal watersheds. New strategies include a blend of public and
private funding sources. Development of long-term finance plans and effective
partnerships, and promoting community support are also key to successful funding of
coastal watershed protection and restoration efforts. EPA will provide coastal resource
managers with practical financing strategies, training, and tools to build the capacity of
coastal watershed organizations nationwide to secure sustainable funding. EPA will
provide information about accessing the Agency's watershed funding portal and using its
web-based resources, including a prioritization tool, step-by-step finance planning
module, and funding databases.
• Smart Growth: EPA will continue to assist local land-use decision-makers by providing
information necessary to plan for growth, minimize the adverse impacts of development,
and promote innovative green infrastructure practices that enhance protection of coastal
communities' water quality and living resources. The Agency also will address the
cumulative environmental impacts of growth in coastal watersheds through application of
smart growth techniques.
• Climate-Ready Estuaries: Partnering with EPA's Air and Radiation program, Climate
Change Division, the program will build the capacity of NEPs and other coastal
watershed entities to lead coastal communities' adaptation to the impacts of climate
change. EPA will modify the successful National Park Service model, "Climate-Friendly
Parks," by working with the NEPs to develop and implement "Climate-Ready Estuaries"
models. The primary focus will be on adaptation of coasts to climate change, as well as
actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The national program will designate NEPs
and other coastal communities as "climate ready," allowing coastal leaders to implement
climate adaptation strategies within their communities and market their needs and actions
to public and private interests.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Program dollars per
acre of habitat
protected or restored.
FY 2007
Actual
482
FY 2007
Target
505
FY 2008
Target
500
FY 2009
Target
500
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Acres protected or
restored in NEP
study areas.
FY 2007
Actual
102,463
FY 2007
Target
50,000
FY 2008
Target
50,000
FY 2009
Target
75,000
Units
Acres
460
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted 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. These reductions will not
impede Agency efforts to maximize efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
• (-$371.0) 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.
• (-$80.0) This decision consolidates Agency program evaluation efforts.
• (-$9,089.0) This total is the net of the 1.56% rescission and a reduction of
congressionally directed increases in the FY 2008 Omnibus for CWA Section 320 grants.
Statutory Authority:
1990 Great Lakes Critical Programs Act; 2002 Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Act; CWA;
Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000; Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990; North
American Wetlands Conservation Act; 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; U.S.-Canada Agreements.
461
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$19,641.9
$19,641.9
144.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$21,518.0
$21,518.0
147.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$21,248.0
$21,248.0
147.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$22,223.0
$22,223.0
147.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$975.0
$975.0
0.0
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 non-governmental organizations and state, Tribal, and local
agencies 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Administration has demonstrated its 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
462
-------
work through six Federal agencies to restore, improve, and protect at least three million acres of
wetlands by 2009.
In FY 2009, 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
implement the joint Corps-EPA Compensatory Mitigation Rule (slated to be finalized in FY
2008) and 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 a watershed approach and 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
2009 on state/Tribal wetlands environmental outcomes.
Two key activities in 2009 will be implementing the 2006 decision of the Supreme Court in the
Rapanos and Carabell cases, and working with our Federal agency partners to accelerate the
completion of the digital Wetlands Data Layer in the National Spatial Data Inventory (NSDI), or
national map.
The decision in Rapanos resulted in an increased demand on EPA and the Corps of Engineers for
case-by-case decisions on whether specific streams and wetlands are within the scope of
jurisdiction under the CWA. These thousands of case by case decisions will create an increase in
the amount of training needed for EPA and Corps field staff. These case by case determinations
will also increase the frequency of interagency analysis and coordination, including site visits.
The June 2007 interagency guidance established the agencies' interpretation of the Rapanos
decision and articulated how the decision would be implemented; making it clear that many new
site-specific jurisdictional determinations would now be required.
The Wetlands Data Layer is one of 34 layers of digital data that comprise the NSDI. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has responsibility for maintaining the Wetlands Data Layer and
EPA works closely with the Service's National Wetlands Inventory to help ensure the map is
updated and maintained. In 2009, EPA will continue to work closely with the FWS and seven
other partner agencies (including the Corps of Engineers and Federal Highways Administration)
to accelerate the completion of the Wetlands Data Layer. This is essential for local, state, Tribal,
regional and national agencies so they can better manage and conserve wetlands in the face of
challenges imposed by climate change, including sea level rise and related issues of flooding and
drought. The Wetlands Data Layer is the primary source of coastal wetlands data for EPA's sea
level rise model. The sea level rise model, also known as SLAMM (Sea Level Affecting
Marshes Model), is the primary model used to predict sea level rise and is used by a number of
Federal agencies. SLAMM simulates the dominant processes involved in wetland conversions
and shoreline modifications during long-term sea level rise. Increasing the accuracy and
463
-------
completeness of the Wetlands Data Layer is important to the overall effectiveness of SLAMM
and directly affects the accuracy of Federal sea level rise projections.
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, which
reports the quantity and type of wetlands in the conterminous United States, 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
Conserving America's Wetlands 2007: Three years of Progress Implementing the President's
Goal (Council on Environmental Quality, April 2007), indicates that 2,769,000 acres of wetlands
have been restored, protected or improved since April 2004.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Working with
partners, achieve a
net increase of acres
of wetlands per year
with additional
focus on biological
and functional
measures and
assessment of
wetland conditions.
(cumulative)
FY 2007
Actual
Data Lag
FY 2007
Target
100,000
FY 2008
Target
100,000
FY 2009
Target
100,000
Units
Acres/year
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
In partnership with
the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers,
states, and tribes,
achieve no net loss
of wetlands each
year under the Clean
Water Act Section
404 regulatory
program
FY 2007
Actual
Data Lag
FY 2007
Target
No Net
Loss
FY 2008
Target
No Net
Loss
FY 2009
Target
No Net
Loss
Units
Acres
This program has not been reviewed under the PART process.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$708.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
464
-------
• (+$267.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
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; U.S.-Canada Agreements.
465
-------
Program Area: Water: Human Health Protection
466
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$2,821.4
$2,821.4
7.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,830.0
$2,830.0
7.7
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,789.0
$2,789.0
7.7
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$2,795.0
$2,795.0
7.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$6.0
$6.0
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 to determine that
467
-------
no consumption advice is necessary; 3) developing and disseminating guidance that states and
tribes can use to communicate the risks of consuming chemically contaminated fish; and 4)
gathering, analyzing, and disseminating information to the public and health professionals that
enable informed decisions on when and where to fish, and how to prepare fish caught for
recreation and subsistence.
Mercury contamination in fish and shellfish is a special concern, and 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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 FDA and public health agencies to develop and distribute outreach
materials related to the joint guidance issued by EPA and FDA for mercury in fish and
shellfish and assess the public's understanding of the guidance.
• Continue to work with 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 provide 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.
468
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of
women of
childbearing age
having mercury
levels in blood
above the level of
concern.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
5.5
FY 2009
Target
5.2
Units
Percent of
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 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
65-85
FY 2009
Target
65-85
Units
Percent of
Areas
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
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 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
2
FY 2009
Target
2
Units
Number of
Outbreaks
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of days of
beach season that
coastal and Great
Lakes beaches
monitored by State
beach safety
programs are open
and safe for
swimming.
FY 2007
Actual
95.2
FY 2007
Target
92.6
FY 2008
Target
92.6
FY 2009
Target
93
Units
Percent of
Days/Season
469
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$80.0) This reflects a consolidation of Agency program evaluation efforts.
• (+$30.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$56.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; BEACH Act of 2000.
470
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$100,323.2
$3,256.6
$103,579.8
564.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$96,967.0
$3,416.0
$100,383.0
584.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$96,722.0
$3,375.0
$100,097.0
584.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$99,476.0
$3,559.0
$103,035.0
583.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,754.0
$184.0
$2,938.0
-0.7
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 2009 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.76 In FY 2009, 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 2009, the Agency will continue implementing requirements for the newly promulgated
Cryptosporidium (Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule or "LT2"),
76 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/FED),
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html.
471
-------
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, Stage 2,
and Ground Water rules in FY 2009. EPA also will assist states in implementing public health
requirements for high-priority drinking water contaminants, including those covered under the
Arsenic Rule and revised Lead and Copper Rule. By FY 2009, all water systems should be in
compliance or on schedules to install treatment or develop alternative solutions to reduce their
arsenic levels below the new standard. EPA will assist small water systems in choosing cost
effective treatment technologies by maintaining and enhancing its Arsenic Virtual Trade Show
website, through continuing its Arsenic Treatment Demonstration Program, and by coordinating
with technical assistance providers. EPA also will continue collaborating with our state partners
and other Federal agencies to assist these small water systems in finalizing and funding their
arsenic reduction efforts.
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 2009. EPA will work directly with approximately 30,000 systems by
reviewing monitoring submissions and conducting training in states that are not
conducting early implementation of the LT2/Stage 2 rules (over 59,000 systems will need
to comply with the rules during FY 2009).
• 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 (UIC) program. Specifically, EPA will deploy and implement the UIC
database through orientation and training of users and leveraging opportunities to reach
users through their national association.
472
-------
• Continue on-going oversight programs for categorical grants (Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS), Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), and UIC).
Drinking Water Standards
In FY 2009, the Agency will continue to collect and evaluate information on potential drinking
water contaminants and their health risks as included on the third Contaminant Candidate List
(CCL3). Potential contaminants may include pharmaceuticals and personal care products. 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 also continue to
evaluate and address drinking water risks though activities to implement the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SOWA) including:
• Reviewing and evaluating comments and information submitted in response to
publications of the draft third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL3) identifying drinking
water contaminants which may require regulation.
• Collecting, compiling and analyzing 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 Review completed every six years.
• Developing proposed revisions to the Total Coliform Rule and considering data and
research needs for water distribution systems, based on recommendations from the Total
Coliform Rule/Distribution Systems Federal Advisory Committee to maintain or
provide for greater public health protection.
• Implementing the appropriate actions to address the long term issues identified in the
national review of the revised 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.
473
-------
Sustainable Infrastructure
EPA's sustainable infrastructure initiative, an Agency priority, is based on four pillars - better
management, full-cost pricing, water efficiency and the watershed approach. EPA's DWSRF
provides states with funds for low-interest loans to assist utilities with financing drinking water
infrastructure needs. In FY 2009, 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.
In 2005, EPA released the third Drinking Water Needs Survey to Congress, based on data
collected from utilities in 2003. In 2009, the Agency plans to release the next report, based on
data collected from utilities in 2007. The survey documents 20-year capital investment needs of
public water systems that are eligible to receive DWSRF monies - approximately 54,000
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 (SOW A). As directed by the SOW A, EPA uses
the results of the survey to allocate DWSRF funds to the states and tribes.
EPA will further contribute to the 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 current and potential
sources of drinking water contamination. These efforts are integral to the sustainable
infrastructure leadership initiative because source water protection can reduce the need for
expensive drinking water treatment, along with related increased energy use and costs, which, in
turn, can reduce the cost of infrastructure.
In FY 2009, 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 by
providing training, technical assistance, and technology transfer capabilities to states and
localities.
• Continue to work with national, state, and local stakeholder organizations and the multi-
partner Source Water Collaborative to encourage broad-based efforts directed at
474
-------
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 Underground Injection Control (UIC) program efforts to protect
underground sources of drinking water by establishing priorities, developing guidance,
measuring program results, and administering the UIC Grants.
• Expand energy permitting work to keep pace with the nation's burgeoning energy
exploration and development; by FY 2009, U.S. energy production is expected to grow
by almost 10% from FY 2005 levels. This includes an increase of 5.0 FTE for energy
permitting.
• Manage the regulation of potential new waste streams that will use underground
injection, including residual waste from desalination and other drinking water treatment
processes.
• Work in concert with the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, the Department of Energy,
and other Federal Agencies as necessary to ensure that wells injecting carbon dioxide do
not endanger underground sources of drinking water.
• Carry out responsibilities in permitting current and future geologic sequestration (GS) of
carbon dioxide projects. FY 2009 funding for carbon sequestration work is $2.6 million.
Activities planned for FY 2009 include:
o Continue development of national rules for the geologic sequestration (GS) of
carbon dioxide recovered from emissions of power plants and other facilities.
o Analyze data collected through Department of Energy pilot projects and industry
efforts to demonstrate and commercialize geologic sequestration of carbon
dioxide technology;
o Engage states and stakeholders through meetings, workshops and other avenues,
as appropriate;
o Provide technical assistance to states in permitting initial GS projects; and
o Work with the Office of Research and Development to understand key issues and
knowledge 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.
The Drinking Water Protection 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
475
-------
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 of
community water
systems that have
undergone a sanitary
survey within the
past three years (five
years for
outstanding
performance.)
FY 2007
Actual
92
FY 2007
Target
95
FY 2008
Target
95
FY 2009
Target
95
Units
Percent CWS
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of person
months during
which community
water systems
provide drinking
water that meets all
applicable health-
based standards.
FY 2007
Actual
96.8
FY 2007
Target
N/A
FY 2008
Target
95
FY 2009
Target
95
Units
Percent CWS
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of
population served by
CWSs that will
receive drinking
water that meets all
applicable health-
based drinking water
standards through
approaches incl.
effective treatment
& source water
protection.
FY 2007
Actual
91.5
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
90
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percent
Population
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of the
population in Indian
country served by
FY 2007
Actual
87
FY 2007
Target
87
FY 2008
Target
87
FY 2009
Target
87
Units
Percent
Population
476
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
community water
systems that receive
drinking water that
meets all applicable
health-based
drinking water
standards
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of
community water
systems that meet all
applicable health-
based standards
through approaches
that include
effective treatment
and source water
protection.
FY 2007
Actual
89
FY 2007
Target
89
FY 2008
Target
89.5
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percent
Systems
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+5.0 FTE / -5.0 FTE / +$1,600.0) This reflects a redirection of program FTE to energy-
related permitting work in support of the Agency's priority on clean and affordable
energy. Additional funds will support carbon sequestration rule development work and
increased energy permitting.
• (-0.7 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 deficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its
programs.
• (+$2,629.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (-$1,843.0) This decrease reflects completion of some EPA efforts, such as early
implementation of LT2/Stage 2, major SDWIS training activities, and efforts on analytic
method development.
• (+$368.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
SOW A; CWA.
477
-------
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
478
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$12,890.5
$12,890.5
43.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$12,851.0
$12,851.0
43.7
FY 2008
Enacted
$12,674.0
$12,674.0
43.7
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$13,185.0
$13,185.0
44.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$511.0
$511.0
0.4
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.
• Operating the Ocean Survey Vessel (OSV) Bold to monitor coastal and ocean waters,
including supporting ocean disposal site management and conducting baseline and trends
assessments (e.g., Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone, climate change indicators, ocean
dumping sites, and coral reefs).
• Supporting international marine pollution control with other Federal agencies through
negotiations of international standards that address aquatic invasive 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 in order to
restore and maintain the health of coastal aquatic communities on a priority basis,
including dredged material management plans for coastal ports.
(See http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/index.html for more information.)
479
-------
FY 2009 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
health of ocean and coastal waters and progress in meeting the strategic targets will be tracked
through periodic issuance of National Coastal Condition reports, a cooperative project with other
Federal agencies. Key FY 2009 actions include:
Reducing Vessel Discharges
• Continue to work with the Department of Defense to finalize discharge standards for
Armed Forces vessels (i.e., complete development for the first phase of the project and
continue development of standards for remaining discharges).
• Continue to participate in the review of clean-up plans for individual Navy and Maritime
Administration vessel-to-reef projects.
• Continue assessing program success in reducing sewage discharges from vessels and
enhance controls of pollutant discharges from vessels.
• Continue to coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) on ballast water discharge
standards.
• 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.
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, as reflected in Site Management Plans.
• As co-chair of the National Dredging Team, in conjunction with the Army Corps of
Engineers and EPA Regional Offices, continue working to create a tracking system for
beneficial use of dredged materials (as an alternative to dumping in ocean or coastal
waters).
• Work with other interested agencies and the international community to develop
guidance on sub-seabed carbon sequestration, and address any requests for carbon
sequestration in the sub-seabed or by iron fertilization of the ocean, including any
required permitting under MPRSA.
480
-------
• Continue working to ensure that U.S. policy and procedures regarding ocean dumping are
consistent with the London Convention of 1972 and its 1996 Protocol. Continue
managing the ocean dumping vessels database which is used for determining compliance
with a general permit under MPRSA for ocean dumping of vessels in the United States.
Monitoring and Assessment
• During 2009, the OSV Bold is expected to continue supporting 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.
• The Agency will use the OSV Bold to stay abreast of climate change science by working
with the Regional Offices and other EPA program offices to identify and develop basic
climate change indicators through the OSVBold's monitoring activities.
Reducing Marine Debris
• Work with other members of the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee
(EVIDCC) to implement an action plan for assessing and reducing marine debris in
response to the forthcoming IMDCC Report to Congress.
Contributing to the Health of Coral Reefs
• Continue participation on the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force in order to address new issues
and problems arising with coral reefs and to expand efforts to reduce stresses on reefs
from rising water temperatures and vessel discharges.
Ocean Action Plan
• The Administration developed the "U.S. Ocean Action Plan" to identify immediate,
short-term actions that will provide direction for ocean policy and outline additional long-
term actions for the future. EPA will continue to be an active participant in the Ocean
Action Plan, using this interagency process to make progress in addressing various issues,
including climate change, regional collaborations, and vessel discharges.
This program was included in OMB's PART assessment, Ocean, Coastal, and Estuary
Protection, completed in 2005, and was rated "adequate." As a follow-up action to the PART
review, 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 individual Site Management Plan.
481
-------
Should a site not achieve acceptable conditions, corrective actions will be taken by the
appropriate parties.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of active
dredged material
ocean dumping sites
that will have
achieved
environmentally
acceptable
conditions (as
reflected in each
site's management
plan).
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
95
FY 2009
Target
95
Units
Percent Sites
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted 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.
• (+$222.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$289.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations Act (PL 106-554); Clean Vessel Act; CWA; CZARA of
1990; FIFRA; MPPRCA of 1987; MPRSA; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004, Section 3516; NEPA, Section 102; NTS A of 1996; NAFTA; Ocean Dumping Ban Act of
1988; OAPCA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; Shore Protection Act of 1988; TSCA; WRDA; Wet
Weather Water Quality Act of 2000.
482
-------
Surface Water Protection
Program Area: Water Quality Protection
Goal: Clean and Safe Water
Objective(s): Protect Water Quality; Enhance Science and Research
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$191,797.2
$191,797.2
1,085.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$196,092.0
$196,092.0
1,101.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$193,546.0
$193,546.0
1,101.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$198,706.0
$198,706.0
1,092.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,160.0
$5,160.0
-8.7
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.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In 2009, EPA will focus its work with states, interstate agencies, tribes and others in key areas of
the national water program, including: water quality standards and technology ($45 million),
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) ($41 million), water monitoring ($23
million, including $5 million for the monitoring initiative), Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) ($28 million), watershed and nonpoint source management ($26 million), sustainable
infrastructure management ($16 million), water infrastructure grants management ($14 million),
and CWA Section 106 program management ($7 million).
Water quality criteria and standards provide the scientific and regulatory foundation for water
quality protection programs under the CWA. They are used to define which waters are clean and
which 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 2009, EPA will continue to support state and Tribal programs by providing scientific
water quality criteria information, which will include conducting scientific studies and
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
CWA, including providing advance guidance and technical assistance where appropriate before
the standards are formally submitted to EPA. EPA expects that 83 percent of state submissions
will be approvable in FY 2009.
483
-------
In FY 2009, EPA will continue the monitoring initiative that began in 2005. EPA will provide
technical support to states, tribes, and other partners participating in national and state
statistically valid surveys. A report on baseline conditions in lakes will be issued in 2009. EPA
also will be analyzing samples for a statistically-valid survey of baseline conditions in rivers and
a second survey of wadeable streams to determine trends in stream conditions. A report on trends
in streams and baseline condition of rivers will be issued in 2011. EPA will support states, tribes
and other partners in the design and collection of data for a fourth survey of coastal water
conditions. 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, and in implementing statistically-valid surveys of water condition at the
state-scale. These efforts will help provide the data and information needed for sound
management of the nation's waters.
In FY 2009, 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
almost 27,000 total TMDLs completed through FY 2007 by states and EPA) and expect to
develop over 3,000 TMDLs in FY 2009.
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 2009, 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 through the national nonpoint source program (Section 319). Nonpoint
source management is the key to addressing most of the remaining water quality problems.
In FY 2009, EPA will provide program leadership and technical support by:
• Creating, supporting, and promoting technical tools that states need to accurately assess
water quality problems and analyze and implement solutions.
• Implementing a new web-based tool to support watershed planning.
• Continue to enhance 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 Section 319-funded projects by relating Section 319 project
information to other data management systems.
• Focusing on the development and dissemination of new tools to promote Low Impact
Development (LID), thereby preventing new nonpoint sources of pollution. LID is an
484
-------
innovative, 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. (See http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lidlit.html for more
information.)
• 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. Also, EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Forest Service to
address water quality impairments by maintaining and restoring National Forest System
watersheds.
In FY 2009, 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 2009, EPA will place an increased focus on energy related permitting. The work
involves NPDES permit actions related to conventional oil and gas, coalbed methane, coal
mining, ethanol, power plants, refineries, uranium, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas
terminals, pipelines, and oil shale/tar sands. EPA will also focus on several other key strategic
objectives for the NPDES and effluent guideline programs:
• Use the results of the "Permitting for Environmental Results Strategy" and regional
program assessments and permit quality reviews to ensure the health of the NPDES
program; continue to address workload concerns in permit issuance; focus limited
resources on priority permits that have the greatest benefit for water quality; encourage
trading and watershed-based permitting; and foster efficiency in permitting program
operations through use of electronic and other streamlining tools. (See
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/per.cfm for more information.)
• Advance program innovations, such as implementing watershed permitting and trading,
and the Green Infrastructure Strategy to reduce wet weather flows. Common green
infrastructure approaches currently in use include green roofs, trees and tree boxes, rain
gardens, vegetated swales, pocket wetlands, infiltration planters, vegetated median strips,
reforestation, and protection and enhancement of riparian buffers and floodplains. EPA
and other leading Green Infrastructure state, city, and private organizations recently
signed an agreement to promote green infrastructure as a means to protect and improve
water quality. EPA is implementing the Green Infrastructure Strategy in concert with the
signatories and other interested organizations. EPA will implement a number of actions
to address technical issues associated with and cost effectiveness of Green Infrastructure;
continuously update the webpage on Green Infrastructure information, practice, tools,
and case studies; issue a Municipal Handbook - a how to guide for local governments to
implement Green Infrastructure approaches to stormwater management; double the
number of model municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits developed with
"volunteer" states; complete the first round of Green Infrastructure Recognition Awards;
485
-------
complete 5 demonstration projects for "green infrastructure" at big box centers through
voluntary collaborations with the "large format retailers;" and complete development of a
best practice guide for Green Infrastructure at Federal facilities in cooperation with other
Federal agencies.
• Implement strategies to improve management of pretreatment programs. Strategies
include implementation of pretreatment program results-based measures based on a pilot
study evaluating 9 draft results-based measures, a draft Measures Implementation
Handbook and widescale testing in 2008, to determine the viability of the measures and
refine their description, source, and reporting factors; implementation of the strategy,
"Oversight of SIUs Discharging to POTWs Without Approved Pretreatment Programs,"
issued on May 18, 2007; and pretreatment training provided for regions and states,
including onsite and web-based and self-directed courses.
• Issue the annual plan that describes the CWA-mandated review of industrial categories to
determine if new or revised effluent guidelines are warranted.
• Continue to develop effluent regulations for discharges from airport deicing facilities,
construction and development activities, and drinking water treatment facilities.
• Develop revised rules for detection and quantitation of pollutants per the
recommendations of a Federal Advisory Committee (FACA). Detection and quantitation
procedures are used by regulatory authorities, dischargers, and labs to determine whether
a pollutant is present and to measure the amount of the pollutant. The FACA
committee's charge is to improve how detection and quantitation limits are calculated and
used in CWA programs, such as how the procedures will be used for compliance or
enforcement. The procedures are included in the Code of Federal Regulations so any
change as a result of the Committee's recommendations will need to go through
rulemaking. EPA could then use the revised procedures to set discharge limits, for
permits, for enforcement, or for lab qualifications. In FY 2009, we will be working on
the rulemaking to codify the new procedures.
New Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) rules were developed in 2003 and were
finalized in 2008 in response to a 2nd Circuit Court ruling. EPA will work with states and tribes
to implement the final rule to assure that, by February 27, 2009, all 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
principles or "pillars" - better management, water efficiency, full-cost pricing, and the watershed
approach. The Agency continues to 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
486
-------
support by improving system performance at the lowest possible cost. We will continue to
implement activities as part of our partnership with six national water and wastewater
associations to promote effective utility management centered on a series of Attributes of
Effectively Managed Utilities and Keys to Management Success, based on the agreement signed
in May 2007. As part of this initiative, we will work with the associations to develop a basic
implementation guide for utilities and a set of targeted utility performance measures linked to the
Attributes and promote their use with utilities.
Water use efforts include the water-efficiency market enhancement program, WaterSense, which
gives 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. The Agency has issued voluntary
specifications for four water-efficient service categories (certification programs for irrigation
system auditors, designers, and installation and maintenance professionals) and two product
categories (residential High-Efficiency Toilets or (HETs) and bathroom faucets). Products that
are successfully tested by an independent laboratory to meet WaterSense specifications may bear
the WaterSense label.
In less than two years, WaterSense has already become a national symbol for water efficiency
among utilities, plumbing manufacturers, and consumers. Awareness of the WaterSense label is
growing every day. More than 80 different models of high-efficiency toilets have earned the
label, and WaterSense labeled faucets should be available in CY 2008. In addition to
manufacturers, EPA will continue to work with utilities, retailers, distributors, and the media to
educate consumers on the benefits of switching to water-efficient products.
EPA realizes that water-efficient products are just the start of a new wave of water conservation.
We will continue to work with utilities to incorporate WaterSense promotion as part of their
broader conservation efforts, which include behavioral changes as well. We will continue to ask
our retail and distribution partners to stock WaterSense labeled products and make it easy for
their customers to find water-saving options. We will employ articles, promotional material
templates, and other cost-effective marketing tactics to educate consumers about the availability
of WaterSense labeled products. By promoting this easily recognizable, consistent national
brand, EPA hopes WaterSense will make water-efficient products the clear and preferred choice
among consumers.
In FY 2009, the Agency will develop specifications based upon research done and decisions
made in FY 2008 on the viability of specification development for additional product and service
categories including showerheads, irrigation control technology, medical devices (e.g., steam
sterilizers), landscape management, and drip irrigation. EPA also will focus on developing,
implementing, and promoting its new home program which provides benchmark criteria for
water-efficient new homes and spurs water-efficiency in construction of new homes.
The Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs) provide low interest loans to help finance
wastewater treatment facilities and other water quality projects. Policy and oversight of the fund
is supported by this program. In managing the CWSRF, EPA continues to work with states to
meet several key objectives:
487
-------
• 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; and
• Continuing to support states efforts in developing integrated priority lists to address
nonpoint source pollution, and estuary protection and wastewater projects.
In FY 2009, EPA will submit the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) Report to Congress
to OMB for review. The CWNS reports on needs for 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 the Report to
Congress and to support permitting, pollutant loadings scenarios, and other watershed-based
management activities.
The Agency also will provide oversight and support for over 2,200 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 program and the Alaska
Native Village program.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of high
priority EPA and
state NPDES
permits that are
reissued on
schedule.
FY 2007
Actual
104
FY 2007
Target
95
FY 2008
Target
95
FY 2009
Target
95
Units
Percent
Permits
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Loading (pounds)
of pollutants
removed per
program dollar
expended.
FY 2007
Actual
331
FY 2007
Target
285
FY 2008
Target
332
FY 2009
Target
368
Units
Lbs
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of waters
assessed using
statistically valid
surveys.
FY 2007
Actual
54
FY 2007
Target
54
FY 2008
Target
65
FY 2009
Target
65
Units
Percent
Waters
488
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Number of TMDLs
that are established
or approved by EPA
on a schedule
consistent with
national policy
(cumulative).
FY 2007
Actual
26,844
FY 2007
Target
25,274
FY 2008
Target
33,828
FY 2009
Target
36,941
Units
TMDLs
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
submissions of new
or revised water
quality standards
from States and
Territories that are
approved by EPA.
FY 2007
Actual
85.6
FY 2007
Target
85
FY 2008
Target
87
FY 2009
Target
83
Units
Percent
Submissions
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 2007
Actual
1,409
FY 2007
Target
1,166
FY 2008
Target
1,550
FY 2009
Target
1,660
Units
Number of
Segments
The Surface Water Protection program underwent a PART evaluation in 2005, and was rated
"moderately effective." This program is working on follow up actions to: (1) assess 100% of
river, lakes, and streams; (2) develop water quality reports on statistically-valid surveys of
wadeable streams; and (3) conduct permit quality reviews.
In August of 2007, EPA adopted a clarification to the TMDL counting methodology to more
directly reflect the pollutants addressed in TMDLs. As a result of this counting methodology
change, the cumulative fiscal year Surface Water Protection Actuals have been revised, resulting
in a cumulative net reduction of 1,577 TMDLs. Actuals and targets for fiscal year 2007 and
earlier were also adjusted consistent with this revised methodology.
Note: Because a TMDL is a plan for attaining water quality standards, the terms "approved" and "established" refer
to the completion of the TMDL itself and not necessarily its implementation.
489
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-11.7 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 various program components and improvements in program management.
• (+3.0 FTE / +$800.0) This change reflects additional FTE and funds for NPDES Energy
Permitting in support of the Agency's priority on clean and affordable energy.
• (+$4,412.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (-$190.0) This decision reflects consolidation of EPA's program evaluation efforts.
• (+$138.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
490
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Inspector General
Resource Summary Table 491
Program Projects in IG 491
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations 492
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations 493
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Inspector General
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Inspector General
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$32,288.4
223.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$38,008.0
287.7
FY 2008
Enacted
$41,099.0
259.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$39,483.0
287.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,616.0)
27.9
Program Projects in IG
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and
Investigations
Subtotal, Audits, Evaluations, and
Investigations
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2007
Actuals
$32,288.4
$32,288.4
$32,288.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$38,008.0
$38,008.0
$38,008.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$41,099.0
$41,099.0
$41,099.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$39,483.0
$39,483.0
$39,483.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,616.0)
($1,616.0)
($1,616.0)
491
-------
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations
492
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$32,288.4
$12,286.2
$44,574.6
307.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$38,008.0
$7,149.0
$45,157.0
331.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$41,099.0
$11,486.0
$52,585.0
331.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$39,483.0
$7,164.0
$46,647.0
331.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,616.0)
($4,322.0)
($5,938.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, investigative, inspection,
and public liaison services and products that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General
Act, as amended, by identifying fraud, waste, and abuse in Agency, grantee and contractor
operations, and 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,
the public, and Congress with independent analyses and recommendations that help resolve
management challenges and identify best practices for safeguarding EPA resources and
accomplishing EPA's environmental goals. OIG activities also prevent and detect fraud in EPA
programs and operations, including financial fraud, lab fraud, and cyber crime. In addition, the
EPA Inspector General serves as the IG for the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board.
FY 2009 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 2009, the OIG will continue focusing on areas associated with
risk, fraud, waste, and verification of data used to support actions and reported results. The OIG
will identify high risk areas and opportunities to reduce administrative overhead, make
recommendations to mitigate those risks, and improve operating efficiency leading to positive
environmental impacts and the cost effective attainment of EPA's strategic goals. The OIG plans
to examine issues related to research and development, enforcement, homeland security,
workforce, project management, Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments, internal
control implementation, data verification, EPA facilities, and policy/regulation review.
493
-------
Audits
Audits will focus on whether: (1) assistance agreements and contracts are efficiently and
effectively administered to accomplish the Agency's mission (emphasis will be on fraud
detection and prevention); (2) risk and PART assessments are serving as controls for identifying
and correcting weaknesses in Agency program operations; (3) accounts receivable are accurate,
complete, and collected timely; (4) unliquidated obligations are valid; (5) interagency financial
transactions are properly recorded and managed; and (6) information technology infrastructure,
data network exchanges, and security meet statutory and regulatory requirements, and provide
information necessary to manage the Agency effectively. In addition, a significant portion of
audit resources will be devoted to mandated work assessing the financial statements of EPA as
required by the Chief Financial Officers Act, 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.
Evaluations
Evaluations will address major issues such as reliability of self-certified data used by EPA to
measure its performance and report results, project management (are programs being managed
for results), homeland security (how prepared is EPA to make decisions and respond to
environmental threats), and follow-up on recommendations contained in previous OIG reports.
Specific areas of evaluation will include: (1) PART reviews and risk assessments; (2) EPA
program enforcement; (3) readiness (how ready are EPA program offices to meet their roles and
responsibilities in emergency situations); (4) homeland security; (5) data verification (how
reliable is the self-certified data EPA collects and uses); 6) research and development (how well
has EPA implemented EPA and OMB peer review policies and requirements); (7) climate
change (are claimed results and cost-benefit analyses accurate and complete); (8) rulemaking;
and (9) wetlands (are EPA's efforts to review and enforce wetland permits adequate).
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 will 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 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 or use of sensitive or proprietary information.
494
-------
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 regarding 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.
Public liaison issues reports and coordinates its efforts with ongoing audits, evaluations, or
investigations.
Follow-up
To further promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness, the OIG will conduct follow-up
reviews of Agency responsiveness to OIG recommendations to determine if appropriate actions
have been taken and intended improvements have been achieved. This process will serve as a
means for keeping EPA leadership apprised of accomplishments and needed corrective actions,
and will facilitate greater accountability for results from OIG operations.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Environmental and
business actions taken
for improved
performance or risk
reduction.
FY 2007
Actual
464
FY 2007
Target
318
FY 2008
Target
334*
FY 2009
Target
318
Units
Actions
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Return on the annual
dollar investment, as a
percentage of the OIG
budget, from audits
and investigations.
FY 2007
Actual
189
FY 2007
Target
150
FY 2008
Target
120*
FY 2009
Target
120
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Environmental and
business
recommendations or
risks identified for
corrective action.
FY 2007
Actual
949
FY 2007
Target
925
FY 2008
Target
971*
FY 2009
Target
903
Units
Recommendations
495
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Criminal, civil,
administrative, and
fraud prevention
actions.
FY 2007
Actual
103
FY 2007
Target
80
FY 2008
Target
80
FY 2009
Target
80
Units
Actions
* Note: Affected targets are subject to being revised upward based upon decisions for funding and
oversight of work related to the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands)
• (+$1,725.0) This is a reallocation of payroll resources to reflect FTE distribution between
the Inspector General and Superfund Transfer appropriations, as well as an increase for
payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$3,992.0) This is a reduction of additional congressionally directed increases in the FY
2008 Omnibus.
• (+$651.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
• (+27.9 FTE) This reflects a redistribution of FTE between the Inspector General and
Superfund Transfer appropriations.
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.
496
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Buildings and Facilities
Resource Summary Table 497
Program Projects in B&F 497
Program Area: Homeland Security 498
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 499
Program Area: Operations and Administration 501
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 502
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Building and Facilities
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Building and Facilities
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$39,044.3
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$34,801.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$34,258.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$35,001.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$743.0
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
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2007
Actuals
$10,372.2
$28,672.1
$28,672.1
$3,121,552.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$7,870.0
$26,931.0
$26,931.0
$3,125,503.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$7,747.0
$26,511.0
$26,511.0
$3,163,403.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$8,070.0
$26,931.0
$26,931.0
$3,176,364.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$323.0
$420.0
$420.0
$12,961.0
497
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
498
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$6,219.1
$2,023.9
$10,372.2
$636.7
$19,251.9
2.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,345.0
$594.0
$7,870.0
$594.0
$15,403.0
3.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,248.0
$585.0
$7,747.0
$585.0
$15,165.0
3.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$6,415.0
$594.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,273.0
3.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$167.0
$9.0
$323.0
$609.0
$1,108.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program ensures 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 and
protect the capability of EPA's vital infrastructure assets. This program also includes protecting
national security information 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Agency will continue to implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12
(HSPD-12: the Smart Card Directive) through upgrading or replacing physical access control
systems and the ancillary infrastructure at five to eight EPA facilities nationwide. Additionally,
EPA will continue installing blast resistant glass materials or procuring and installing laminated
glass windows at the Agency's Security Level 3 and 4 facilities as well as facilities housing
critical infrastructures. EPA also will 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.
499
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$200.0) In support of HSPD-20, this increase provides funding for emergency back-up
power capabilities at EPA homeland security laboratories.
• (+$123.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
Statutory Authority:
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002; Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act (Sections 604 and 629).
500
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
501
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$327,954.1
$32,886.2
$28,672.1
$848.5
$500.4
$70,265.0
$461,126.3
399.2
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
Enacted
$297,189.0
$72,707.0
$26,511.0
$887.0
$488.0
$73,787.0
$471,569.0
415.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$311,068.0
$74,884.0
$26,931.0
$902.0
$496.0
$76,270.0
$490,551.0
410.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$13,879.0
$2,177.0
$420.0
$15.0
$8.0
$2,483.0
$18,982.0
-5.3
Program Project Description:
Buildings and Facilities (B&F) appropriation activities include design, construction, repair and
improvement projects for buildings occupied by EPA, whether Federally owned or leased.
Construction and alteration projects more than $85,000 must use B&F funding. Deferring
maintenance often increases the eventual cost of maintenance projects and may worsen other
repair issues.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
These resources help to improve operating efficiency, sustain safe work environments, and
encourage the use of new, advanced technologies and advanced energy sources. Additionally, the
Agency will meet the Federal facility environmental objectives related to efficient and
sustainability building management practices as required by Executive Orders and the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, to attain energy reductions of three percent and water reductions of two
percent a year through 2015.
EPA's efforts will include implementing the findings of comprehensive facility energy audits;
safely, health, and environmental management 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. The Agency also will continue to review
proposed and previously submitted energy reduction project requests for prioritization and
funding.
502
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$420.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
to fund facilities support costs.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Annual Appropriations
Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; CWA; CAA; RCRA;
TSCA; NEPA; CERFA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; EPACT of 2005; Executive Orders 10577,
12598, 13150 and 13423; Emergency Support Functions (ESF) #10 Oil and Hazardous Materials
Response Annex; Homeland Security Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure
Protection).
503
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Superfund
Resource Summary Table 504
Program Projects in Superfund 504
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality 508
Radiation: Protection 509
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations 511
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations 512
Program Area: Compliance 515
Compliance Assistance and Centers 516
Compliance Incentives 518
Compliance Monitoring 520
Program Area: Enforcement 523
Environmental Justice 524
Superfund: Enforcement 526
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement 530
Civil Enforcement 532
Criminal Enforcement 534
Enforcement Training 537
Forensics Support 539
Program Area: Homeland Security 542
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection 543
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and Recovery 545
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure 550
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach 552
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations 553
Exchange Network 555
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 557
Information Security 558
IT / Data Management 560
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review 564
Alternative Dispute Resolution 565
Legal Advice: Environmental Program 567
Program Area: Operations and Administration 569
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 570
Financial Assistance Grants /IAG Management 573
Acquisition Management 575
Human Resources Management 577
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 579
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems 582
Human Health Risk Assessment 583
Program Area: Research: Land Protection 586
Research: Land Protection and Restoration 587
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainability 592
Research: Sustainability 593
Program Area:
Superfund:
Superfund:
Superfund:
Superfund:
Superfund Cleanup 594
Emergency Response and Removal 595
EPA Emergency Preparedness 598
Federal Facilities 600
Remedial 604
Superfund: Support to Other Federal Agencies 610
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Hazardous Substance Superfund
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Hazardous Substance
Superfund
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$1,352,419.3
3,147.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,244,706.0
3,205.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,253,998.0
3,233.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$1,264,233.0
3,185.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,235.0
-48.0
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
Environmental Justice
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Forensics Support
FY 2007
Actuals
$1,960.9
$12,286.2
$11.1
$139.4
$1,487.0
$1,637.5
$911.1
$164,108.2
$8,846.2
$739.2
$7,895.7
$630.7
$2,805.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,373.0
$7,149.0
$22.0
$144.0
$1,182.0
$1,348.0
$757.0
$161,610.0
$9,843.0
$884.0
$9,167.0
$840.0
$2,310.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,342.0
$11,486.0
$22.0
$159.0
$1,165.0
$1,346.0
$745.0
$164,845.0
$9,726.0
$870.0
$9,053.0
$827.0
$3,750.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$2,414.0
$7,164.0
$22.0
$146.0
$1,192.0
$1,360.0
$757.0
$163,678.0
$10,225.0
$0.0
$7,830.0
$858.0
$2,441.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$72.0
($4,322.0)
$0.0
($13.0)
$27.0
$14.0
$12.0
($1,167.0)
$499.0
($870.0)
($1,223.0)
$31.0
($1,309.0)
504
-------
Program Project
Subtotal, Enforcement
Homeland Security
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
FY 2007
Actuals
$185,936.3
$300.0
$61.8
$1,575.4
$1,637.2
$6,913.3
$8,519.1
$34,885.7
$50,318.1
$636.7
$52,892.0
$137.5
$1,374.2
$1,511.7
$562.3
$15,975.5
$16,537.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$185,411.0
$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
FY 2008
Enacted
$189,816.0
$0.0
$195.0
$1,633.0
$1,828.0
$10,371.0
$5,971.0
$28,287.0
$44,629.0
$585.0
$47,042.0
$154.0
$1,411.0
$1,565.0
$780.0
$16,083.0
$16,863.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$185,789.0
$0.0
$198.0
$1,481.0
$1,679.0
$10,620.0
$9,589.0
$36,467.0
$56,676.0
$1,194.0
$59,549.0
$0.0
$1,433.0
$1,433.0
$801.0
$16,872.0
$17,673.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($4,027.0)
$0.0
$3.0
($152.0)
($149.0)
$249.0
$3,618.0
$8,180.0
$12,047.0
$609.0
$12,507.0
($154.0)
$22.0
($132.0)
$21.0
$789.0
$810.0
505
-------
Program Project
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Legal Advice: Environmental
Program
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory /
Economic Review
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations (other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure
and Operations
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG
Management
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
FY 2007
Actuals
$1,020.6
$826.8
$1,847.4
$46,016.9
$1,619.3
$4,308.9
$18,319.9
$70,265.0
$2,671.4
$19,129.3
$5,203.0
$20,428.7
$117,697.4
$3,926.4
$23,859.1
$255.1
$24,114.2
$212.3
$222,093.7
$9,101.6
$31,763.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$837.0
$606.0
$1,443.0
$44,997.0
$2,466.0
$6,767.0
$20,726.0
$74,956.0
$3,049.0
$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
FY 2008
Enacted
$825.0
$740.0
$1,565.0
$44,295.0
$2,428.0
$6,661.0
$20,403.0
$73,787.0
$3,001.0
$24,327.0
$4,969.0
$24,008.0
$130,092.0
$3,910.0
$19,768.0
$0.0
$19,768.0
$0.0
$190,011.0
$9,195.0
$31,447.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$846.0
$631.0
$1,477.0
$45,353.0
$3,042.0
$6,524.0
$21,351.0
$76,270.0
$3,116.0
$24,985.0
$5,063.0
$26,102.0
$135,536.0
$3,325.0
$21,021.0
$0.0
$21,021.0
$0.0
$193,853.0
$9,504.0
$31,440.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$21.0
($109.0)
($88.0)
$1,058.0
$614.0
($137.0)
$948.0
$2,483.0
$115.0
$658.0
$94.0
$2,094.0
$5,444.0
($585.0)
$1,253.0
$0.0
$1,253.0
$0.0
$3,842.0
$309.0
($7.0)
506
-------
Program Project
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund: Support to Other
Federal Agencies
Brownfields Projects
Subtotal, Brownfields Projects
Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2007
Actuals
$659,513.4
$4,967.0
$4,420.0
$4,420.0
$931,859.2
$1,352,419.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$584,836.0
$6,575.0
$0.0
$0.0
$824,488.0
$1,244,706.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$591,078.0
$6,472.0
$0.0
$0.0
$828,203.0
$1,253,998.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$586,120.0
$6,575.0
$0.0
$0.0
$827,492.0
$1,264,233.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($4,958.0)
$103.0
$0.0
$0.0
($711.0)
$10,235.0
507
-------
Program Area: Air Toxics And Quality
508
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$10,172.7
$2,126.1
$1,960.9
$14,259.7
89.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,186.0
$2,120.0
$2,373.0
$14,679.0
88.6
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,057.0
$2,087.0
$2,342.0
$14,486.0
88.6
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$10,533.0
$2,109.0
$2,414.0
$15,056.0
88.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$476.0
$22.0
$72.0
$570.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program addresses potential radiation risks found at some Superfund and hazardous waste
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 Priorities List (NPL) and non-NPL sites.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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 scanning and air sampling equipment and personnel.
509
-------
Performance Targets:
EPA expects to be on track through its ongoing work to accomplish 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently approved several outcome-oriented
strategic and annual performance measures for this program in conjunction with its 2007 PART
assessment. The measures all have baseline data and some historical data which provide a
benchmark to assist in the development of the outyear targets. The Radiation Program received a
rating of "moderately effective."
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$168.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$96.0) This reduction reflects the net change after restoring the FY 2008 Omnibus
1.56% rescission and reducing funding for analysis associated with mixed waste sites.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA, as amended by the SARA of 1986.
510
-------
Program Area: Audits, Evaluations And Investigations
511
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$32,288.4
$12,286.2
$44,574.6
307.5
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$38,008.0
$7,149.0
$45,157.0
331.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$41,099.0
$11,486.0
$52,585.0
331.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$39,483.0
$7,164.0
$46,647.0
331.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,616.0)
($4,322.0)
($5,938.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, evaluation, investigative, inspection,
and public liaison services and products that fulfill the requirements of the Inspector General
Act, as amended, by identifying fraud, waste, and abuse in Agency, grantee and contractor
operations, and 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, the public, and Congress with independent analyses and recommendations that help
resolve management challenges and identify best practices for safeguarding EPA resources and
accomplishing EPA's environmental goals. OIG activities also prevent and detect fraud in EPA
programs and operations, including financial fraud, lab fraud, and cyber crime.
FY 2009 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 2009, the OIG will continue focusing on land restoration
and reuse as well as areas associated with risk, fraud, waste, and verification of data used to
support actions and reported results. The OIG will identify high risk areas and opportunities to
reduce administrative overhead, and make recommendations to mitigate those risks and improve
operating efficiency leading to positive environmental impacts and the cost effective attainment
of EPA's goals related to the Superfund program.
512
-------
Audits and Evaluations
OIG audits and evaluations related to the Superfund program 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 effectively EPA and other Federal agencies have addressed and resolved human health and
environmental risks at facilities on the National Priorities List and other sites that are supported
by Superfund resources.
Prior audits and evaluations of the Superfund program have identified numerous barriers to
implementing effective resource management and program improvements, especially in the high-
dollar value areas of special account management. The OIG will review: (1) EPA's management
of Superfund special accounts, actions on closing accounts, and other actions to improve
management of these accounts; (2) recording and collection of Superfund accounts receivable;
(3) cost recovery at Superfund Federal facilities; (4) Superfund post-construction activities
(review and verify documentation for sites that have been designated construction complete); (5)
follow-up on millions of dollars not redistributed to Superfund sites; and (6) funds obligated for
Superfund interagency agreements and cooperative agreements with states. The OIG will also
evaluate ways to minimize fraud, waste, and abuse, and 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, performing, 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 risks; 3) false claims for erroneous laboratory results that undermine the bases for
Superfund decision-making, regulatory compliance, or enforcement actions; and 4) intrusions
into EPA's computer systems as well as incidents of computer misuse. Further, the 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 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. Areas to be addressed will include the Superfund
community involvement plan (effectiveness and consistency in Regional offices), and the
Superfund site information repository.
513
-------
Follow-up
To further promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness, the OIG will conduct follow-up
reviews of Agency responsiveness to OIG recommendations for the Superfund program to
determine if appropriate actions have been taken and intended improvements have been
achieved. This process will serve as a means for keeping EPA leadership apprised of needed
accomplishments and corrective actions, and will facilitate greater accountability for results from
OIG operations.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$2,953.0) This is the net effect of a reallocation of payroll resources to reflect FTE
distribution between the Inspector General and Superfund Transfer appropriations, as
well as an increase for payroll and cost of living for remaining FTE.
• (-$1,551.0) This decrease reflects a reduction to non-payroll resources, including contract
work and other support costs.
• (+$182.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
• (-27.9 FTE) This reflects a redistribution of FTE between the Inspector General and
Superfund Transfer appropriations.
Statutory Authority:
Inspector General Act, as amended; SARA; CERCLA; TSCA.
514
-------
Program Area: Compliance
515
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$28,226.9
$644.1
$267.9
$11.1
$29,150.0
205.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,547.0
$688.0
$291.0
$22.0
$30,548.0
208.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$27,725.0
$709.0
$286.0
$22.0
$28,742.0
208.4
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$26,435.0
$753.0
$303.0
$22.0
$27,513.0
198.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,290.0)
$44.0
$17.0
$0.0
($1,229.0)
-10.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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 2009, 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.
1 For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html: www.epa.gov/clearinghouse:
and www.assistancecenters.net.
516
-------
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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture.
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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$104.0) This increase is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE.
• (-$1,619.0 / -5.0 FTE) This sustains a congressional decrease for compliance assistance
centers in the FY 2008 Omnibus.
• (+$225.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to several technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel and other
support costs across programs
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CERCLA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA.
517
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$9,448.8
$139.4
$9,588.2
66.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,786.0
$144.0
$9,930.0
74.6
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,618.0
$159.0
$10,777.0
74.6
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$10,263.0
$146.0
$10,409.0
71.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($355.0)
($13.0)
($368.0)
-3.5
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 EPA's 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).2
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Compliance Incentives program will provide Superfund support for ICIS and
ongoing enhancements to continue support of the Federal enforcement and compliance program.
EPA will continue to ensure the security and integrity of these systems, and will use ICIS data to
support Superfund-related regulatory enforcement program activities.
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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture.
! For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/programs/index.html.
518
-------
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 actions. 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 resulting from enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown over the past 5 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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$37.0) 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.
• (+$24.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NEPA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR.
519
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$90,724.6
$1,487.0
$92,211.6
625.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$93,428.0
$1,182.0
$94,610.0
629.5
FY 2008
Enacted
$88,726.0
$1,165.0
$89,891.0
629.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$96,025.0
$1,192.0
$97,217.0
623.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$7,299.0
$27.0
$7,326.0
-6.5
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 also will ensure the security and integrity
of its compliance information systems.
FY 2009 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 2009, 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. In FY 2009, EPA will spend
$190K in this program project for ICIS-related work.
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 2009. 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
approximately 75,000 queries per month.
520
-------
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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic architecture.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of
concluded
enforcement cases
requiring that
pollution be reduced,
treated, or eliminated.
FY 2007
Actual
27
FY 2007
Target
30
FY 2008
Target
30
FY 2009
Target
30
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of
concluded
enforcement cases
requiring
implementation of
improved
environmental
management practices.
FY 2007
Actual
70
FY 2007
Target
70
FY 2008
Target
70
FY 2009
Target
70
Units
Percentage
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Pounds of pollution
estimated to be
reduced, treated, or
eliminated as a result
of concluded
enforcement actions.
(civil enf)
FY 2007
Actual
890
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
890
FY 2009
Target
890
Units
Million
pounds
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
521
-------
reduced, looks at the overall reduction in pollution as a result of enforcement actions3. The
Agency is exploring methodologies to extend the measure by analyzing the risk associated with
the pollutants reduced. This may entail analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.
Although the estimated pollution reductions resulting from enforcement actions taken by EPA
have grown over the past 5 years, 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. Thus the targets estimated for 2008 and 2009 are
based on what was achieved in the previous two years. Actuals in 2008 and 2009 could vary
from these targets.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$20.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$7.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects in
addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR; NEPA.
3 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.
522
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
523
-------
Environmental Justice
Program Area: Enforcement
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Hazardous Substance
Super fund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$6,319.2
$911.1
$7,230.3
23.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,822.0
$757.0
$4,579.0
16.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,399.0
$745.0
$7,144.0
16.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$3,811.0
$757.0
$4,568.0
16.9
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($2,588.0)
$12.0
($2,576.0)
0.0
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 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 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 Environmental Justice program also provides education, outreach, and data to communities
and facilitates the integration of environmental justice considerations into Agency programs,
policies, and activities. It compliments and enhances the community outreach work done under
the Superfund program at affected sites. The Agency also supports state and Tribal
environmental justice (EJ) programs and conducts outreach and technical assistance to states,
local governments, and stakeholders on environmental justice issues.4
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to enhance its environmental justice integration and collaborative
problem-solving initiatives. By fully integrating environmental justice considerations within its
programs, policies, and activities, EPA will build greater capacity within its Headquarters and
Regional offices to better address the environmental and/or human health concerns of all
communities, and build collaborative problem-solving capacity within communities affected
disproportionately by environmental risks and harms, including minority and/or low-income
communities.
4 For more information on the Environmental Justice program, please refer to:
www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaliustice/index.html.
524
-------
EPA will continue to manage its Environmental Justice Small Grants program, which assists
community-based organizations in developing solutions to local environmental issues.
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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the Healthy Communities objective 4.2.2. By 2011, 30
communities with potential environmental justice concerns will achieve significant measurable
environmental or public health improvement through collaborative problem-solving strategies.
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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$12.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
Statutory Authority:
Executive Order 12898; CERCLA, as amended.
525
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$164,108.2
$164,108.2
942.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$161,610.0
$161,610.0
971.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$164,845.0
$164,845.0
971.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$163,678.0
$163,678.0
961.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,167.0)
($1,167.0)
-10.7
Program Project Description:
EPA negotiates cleanup and removal agreements with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at
hazardous waste sites and, where negotiations fail, the Agency either takes enforcement actions
to require cleanup or expends Superfund Trust Fund dollars to remediate the sites. When EPA
uses appropriated Trust Fund dollars, the Superfund Enforcement program takes action against
PRPs to recover the cleanup costs. 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 on cleanup. In tandem with this approach, EPA has
implemented various reforms to increase fairness, reduce transaction costs, and promote
economic development and make sites available for appropriate re-use. EPA also works to
ensure that required legally enforceable institutional controls and financial assurance
requirements are in place at Superfund sites to ensure the long-term protectiveness of Superfund
cleanup actions.
The Agency establishes and uses site-specific Special Accounts, sub-accounts within the Trust
Fund, where applicable. Special Accounts segregate funds obtained from responsible parties
who enter into settlement agreements with EPA. These funds act as an incentive for other PRPs
to perform cleanup work and can be used by the Agency to fund cleanup at that site.
Consequently, the Agency can sustain the "polluter pays" principle, clean up more sites, and
preserve appropriated dollars for sites without viable PRPs. Since the program's inception, EPA
has achieved more than $8 in private party cleanup commitments and cost recovery for every $1
spent on Superfund litigation costs.
FY 2009 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
this approach, various Superfund reforms have been implemented to increase fairness, reduce
526
-------
transaction costs, and promote economic redevelopment.5 EPA also will work to ensure that
required legally enforceable institutional controls and financial assurance requirements are in
place at Superfund sites to ensure the long-term protectiveness of Superfund cleanup actions.
Throughout FY 2009, 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 — prior to the end of the statute of limitations period — 100 percent of past
costs at sites where total past costs are equal to or greater than $200,000. The Agency also will
continue efforts to address past costs at sites where total costs are below $200,000.
In FY 2009, the Agency will provide the DOJ with $23.9 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 timely for oversight, and makes
collections in a timely manner. By pursuing cost recovery settlements, the program promotes
the principle that polluters should either perform or pay for cleanups which preserves
appropriated Trust Fund resources to address contaminated sites where there are no viable, liable
PRPs. The Agency's expenditures will be recouped through administrative actions and
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section
107 case referrals. The Agency also will continue to refer delinquent accounts receivable to DOJ
for debt collection enforcement.
In FY 2009, 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
the associated cleanup costs from the PRPs. The Agency also will continue its efforts to
establish and use special accounts to facilitate cleanup to improve tracking and projection of
special account funds designated for specific construction activities.
During FY 2009, the Agency will continue the financial management aspects of Superfund cost
recovery and the collection of related debt. These efforts include tracking and managing
Superfund delinquent debt, maintaining the Superfund Cost Recovery Package Imaging and On-
Line System (SCORPIOS), and using SCORPIOS to prepare 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 and annual
5 For more information about EPA's Superfund enforcement program, and its various components, refer to:
www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/.
527
-------
allocation 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.
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 2009, EPA also will 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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic architecture.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
Superfund sites at
which settlement or
enforcement action
taken before the start
ofRA.
FY 2007
Actual
98
FY 2007
Target
95
FY 2008
Target
95
FY 2009
Target
95
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Refer to DOJ, settle,
or write off 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
FY 2007
Actual
98
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
528
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
recovered.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
The Superfund Enforcement Program measures the Volume of Contaminated Media Addressed
(VCMA), which is a companion to the pounds of pollutants reduced. This represents the volume
of contaminated media (e.g., soil, groundwater, sediment) addressed through completed
enforcement actions.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3,927.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-11.0 FTE) As the program has matured, fewer resources are needed to identify, locate
and reach settlement with PRPs to clean up sites or recover Trust Fund monies expended.
• (-$5,334.0) This reduces Congressionally-directed funding in the FY 2008 Omnibus.
• (-$162.0) This change reflects the 1.56% rescission to all program projects in addition to
small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support costs across
programs.
Statutory Authority:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; CERCLA;
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.
529
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$8,846.2
$8,846.2
61.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,843.0
$9,843.0
74.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$9,726.0
$9,726.0
74.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$10,225.0
$10,225.0
72.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$499.0
$499.0
-1.5
Program Project Description:
The Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program ensures that 1) all Federal facility sites
on the National Priorities List have interagency agreements (lAGs), which provide enforceable
schedules for the progression of the entire cleanup; 2) these lAGs are monitored for compliance;
and 3) Federal sites that are transferred to new owners are transferred in an environmentally
responsible manner. 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Section 120, EPA will enter into lAGs with responsible Federal entities to ensure
protective cleanup at a timely pace in FY 2009. EPA also will monitor milestones in existing
lAGs, resolve disputes, and oversee all remedial work being conducted at Federal facilities.
EPA also works to ensure that required legally enforceable institutional controls and financial
assurance requirements are in place at Superfund sites to ensure the long-term protectiveness of
Superfund cleanup actions. EPA also will 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
530
-------
measurement experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve
measurement. As a result of this review, EPA is considering transitioning the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA
strategic architecture.
Performance Targets:
The Superfund Enforcement Program measures the Volume of Contaminated Media Addressed
(VCMA), which is a companion to the pounds of pollutants reduced. This represents the volume
of contaminated media (e.g., soil, groundwater, sediment) addressed through completed
enforcement actions. The Agency is exploring methodologies to extend the measure by
analyzing the risk associated with the contaminated media addressed. This may entail analysis
of pollutant hazards and population exposure. Work under this program supports Restore Land
and Improve Compliance objective, although currently no specific performance measures exist
for the program project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$282.0) This reflects a net increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-1.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities
• (+$217.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs. Funds will support policy and oversight in the federal facilities
program.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; SBLRBRERA; DBCRA; Defense Authorization Amendments; BRAC; PPA;
CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA; PHSA; DRAA; SOW A; Executive Order 12241; Executive
Order 12656.
531
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$123,003.7
$1,661.5
$739.2
$125,404.4
914.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$126,645.0
$2,065.0
$884.0
$129,594.0
969.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$129,886.0
$2,072.0
$870.0
$132,828.0
969.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$133,017.0
$2,233.0
$0.0
$135,250.0
958.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,131.0
$161.0
($870.0)
$2,422.0
-10.9
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 Superfund portion of the program
collaborated with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to ensure consistent and fair enforcement of
Superfund-related environmental laws and regulations.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance has achieved efficiencies through the
Agency's workforce management strategy that will help the program better align resources,
skills, and Agency priorities to other programs; therefore, resources for Superfund portion of the
civil enforcement program will not be requested in FY 2009.
Performance Targets:
EPA's Monitoring and Enforcement Program achieves pollutant reductions and improvements in
regulated entities' environmental management practices through the settlement of enforcement
cases. There are many programs evaluated under the Civil Enforcement PART assessment.
These programs include Compliance Assistance, Compliance Incentives, Compliance
Monitoring, Civil Enforcement, Enforcement Training, Forensics, Superfund Enforcement, and
categorical grant programs for toxic substances and sectors. One of the key Civil Enforcement
PART program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions. The Agency is exploring methodologies to
strengthen the measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may
entail analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.
532
-------
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. Work under this program supports
multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific
Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$176.0) 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.
• (-$300.0 / -1.7 FTE) This decrease reduces support for ensuring national consistency for
the enforcement of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) section 103; and Emergency Planning, and Community Right-
to-know Act (EPCRA) section 304 accidental release reporting requirements.
• (-$394.0) This change reflects the net restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects in addition to several technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs
Statutory Authority:
RCRA; CERCLA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; RLBPHRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC;
LPA-US/MX-BR; NEPA; SBLRBRERA; PPA; CERFA; AEA; UMTRLWA.
533
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$39,721.6
$7,895.7
$47,617.3
259.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,688.0
$9,167.0
$48,855.0
268.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$40,742.0
$9,053.0
$49,795.0
268.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$44,384.0
$7,830.0
$52,214.0
278.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,642.0
($1,223.0)
$2,419.0
9.2
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 knowing, 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. Bringing criminal cases sends a strong message to 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 presented 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.6
' For more information refer to: ww.epa.gov/compliance/criminal/index.html.
534
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the criminal enforcement program will continue implementing its strategic approach
by emphasizing investigations and prosecutions in areas of national and regional Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)-related enforcement
priority focus, 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
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 accomplished by establishing an 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 repeated 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 management oversight controls and national policies in
place, 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
Area Office) to ensure consistency with investigatory discretion guidance and enforcement
priorities, and developing, implementing, and periodically reviewing and revising policies and
programs.
In FY 2009, the program will use data from the Criminal Case Reporting System made available
through enhancements to be completed in FY 2008. 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 2009, 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 on EPA's
website. 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. The program developed a
target and baseline for the pollution reduction measure in FY 2006. The baselines and targets for
535
-------
the Recidivism and the Pollutant Impact measures will be developed in FY 2007 and FY 2008,
respectively.
Performance Targets:
In FY 2009, 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 (FYs 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 2009, the Criminal Enforcement Program will report its PART-approved
measures on "improved environmental management" and "recidivism". 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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$1,160.0) This decrease is the net effect of increases for payroll and cost of living for
existing FTE, combined with a FTE reduction and a recalculation of base workforce
costs.
• (-10.8 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. It realigns FTEs from the
Superfund appropriation to the EPM appropriation to more accurately reflect the criminal
investigator workload.
• (-$63.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
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).
536
-------
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
Super fund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$2,668.3
$630. 7
$3,299.0
20.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,145.0
$840.0
$3,985.0
20.9
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,096.0
$827.0
$3,923.0
20.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$3,043.0
$858.0
$3,901.0
20.9
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($53.0)
$31.0
($22.0)
0.0
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" training
information clearinghouse includes links to course offering lists, as well as tools for Agency
training providers to assist with developing, managing, and evaluating the program's training.7
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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 in developing course agendas and in determining 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, 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
7 For more information, please refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html
537
-------
experts. The purpose of the review was to identify opportunities to improve measurement. As a
result of this review, EPA is considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture.
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 2007
Actual
890
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
890
FY 2009
Target
890
Units
Million
pounds
One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions. The Agency is exploring methodologies to extend
the measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may entail
analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.
Estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA have grown
over the past five years. The last two years have seen actuals in the 890 M pounds range, and
therefore our targets are being adjusted upward. However, one or two cases can have a
significant effect on the end-of-year results. These estimates are projections made from future
pollution reduction based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$55.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$24.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; EPCRA; TSCA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR; NEPA.
538
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$13,949.3
$2,805.2
$16,754.5
97.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,075.0
$2,310.0
$17,385.0
105.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$14,882.0
$3,750.0
$18,632.0
105.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$15,557.0
$2,441.0
$17,998.0
105.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$675.0
($1,309.0)
($634.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Forensics Support program provides specialized scientific and technical support for the
nation's most complex Superfund civil and criminal enforcement cases and provides technical
expertise for non-routine Agency compliance efforts. EPA's National Enforcement
Investigations Center (NEIC) is the only accredited environmental forensics center in the nation.
NEIC's Accreditation Standard has been customized to cover the civil, criminal, and special
program work conducted by the program.
NEIC collaborates with other Federal, state, local, and Tribal enforcement organizations to
provide technical assistance, consultation, on-site inspection, investigation and case resolution
activities in support of the Agency's civil enforcement program. In addition, the program
coordinates with the Department of Justice and other Federal, state, and local law enforcement
organizations to provide this type of science and technology support for criminal investigations.8
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Efforts to stay at the forefront of environmental enforcement in FY 2009 will include the
refinement of "source-receptor" strategies to identify potential responsible parties' use of
customized laboratory methods to solve unusual enforcement case challenges 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.
! For more information, refer to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/neic/index.html.
539
-------
In FY 2009, the Forensics program will continue to function under more stringent International
Standards Organization (ISO) requirements for environmental data measurements to maintain its
accreditation. The program also will continue development of emerging technologies in field
measurement 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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture.
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 2007
Actual
890
FY 2007
Target
500
FY 2008
Target
890
FY 2009
Target
890
Units
Million
pounds
One of the program measures, pounds of pollutants reduced, looks at the overall reduction in
pollution as a result of enforcement actions. The Agency is exploring methodologies to
strengthen the measure by analyzing the risk associated with the pollutants reduced. This may
entail analysis of pollutant hazards and population exposure.
Estimated pollution reductions as a result of the enforcement actions taken by EPA have grown
over the past five years. The last two years have seen actuals in the 890 M pounds range, and
therefore our targets are being adjusted upward. However, one or two cases can have a
significant effect on the end-of-year results. These estimates are projections made from future
pollution reduction based on the settlement agreements entered during each specific fiscal year.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$159.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1,492.0) This reduces a Congressionally-directed increase in the FY 2008.
• (+$24.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
540
-------
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; EPCRA.
541
-------
Program Area: Homeland Security
542
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$9,555.5
$10,575.4
$1,637.2
$21,768.1
53.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$7,787.0
$25,586.0
$1,857.0
$35,230.0
59.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$7,665.0
$15,357.0
$1,828.0
$24,850.0
59.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$6,759.0
$27,131.0
$1,679.0
$35,569.0
49.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($906.0)
$11,774.0
($149.0)
$10,719.0
-10.0
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 the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). The program coordinates the Agency's law enforcement/crisis
management activities and participates in Homeland Security Presidential Directives 5, 7, 8, and
10, while also having direct responsibilities pursuant to the National Response Plan (NRP),
Emergency Support Functions 10 and 13, and the Oil and Hazardous Materials Annex.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to train all criminal investigators within the Office of Criminal
Enforcement, Forensics and Training (OCEFT) in "Hot Zone Forensic Evidence Collection"
typically utilized at crime scenes involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) as well as
environmental crimes. The program will continue this multi-year effort to train and provide
these agents with the necessary specialized response skills and evidence collection equipment.
This will enable these agents to collect evidence and process a crime scene safely and effectively
in a contaminated environment (hot zone).
Advanced crime scene processing training also will be provided to those criminal investigators
assigned to the National Counter Terrorism Evidence Response Team (NCERT). NCERT 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 also will supply the required support as described in the various Emergency Support
Functions (ESFs) of the National Response Plan (NRP) and National Response Framework
(NRF) during a national emergency. Additionally, EPA agents in the homeland security
program will provide more robust support, involving evidence collection, to the BioWatch,
543
-------
Water Security Initiative, and RadNet programs. During FY 2009, it is anticipated that the
number of NSSEs and other events to which EPA criminal investigators are deployed will
remain high.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$42.0) 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.
• (-1.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
• (-$107.0) This change reflects small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel
or other support costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA, as amended; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act
of2002.
544
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$3,394.3
$39,003.6
$50,318.1
$92,716.0
166.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$3,381.0
$40,768.0
$45,280.0
$89,429.0
167.6
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,329.0
$38,193.0
$44,629.0
$86,151.0
167.6
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$3,412.0
$46,210.0
$56,676.0
$106,298.0
174.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$83.0
$8,017.0
$12,047.0
$20,147.0
6.6
Program Project Description:
EPA's Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness and Response program develops and
maintains an agency-wide capability to respond to large-scale catastrophic incidents with
emphasis on those that may involve Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The program builds
upon EPA's long-standing emergency response and removal program, which is responsible for
responding to and cleaning up both oil and hazardous substance releases. EPA's homeland
security effort expands these responsibilities to include threats associated with Chemical,
Biological, and Radiological (CBR) agents. Over the next several years, the Agency will
continue to focus on building the capacity to respond to multiple simultaneous large-scale
catastrophic incidents. To meet this challenge, EPA will continue to 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, efforts to develop the capability to respond to multiple incidents 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 the development of decontamination options, methods, and
protocols to ensure that the nation can quickly recover from nationally significant incidents; 3)
operating and maintaining a nationwide environmental laboratory network capability to enhance
coordination and standardization of laboratory support which includes expanding Agency
Chemical Warfare Agent (CWA) fixed and field capabilities; and 4) implementing the EPA's
545
-------
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:
• Develop and maintain the skills of EPA's On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) through
specialized training, exercises, and equipment. In FY 2009, EPA and its Federal, state,
and local homeland response partners will continue to develop and participate in a wide
range of exercises and trainings designed to test EPA's response capabilities. EPA will
continue procurement of upgrades of specialized response equipment and will ensure
maintenance of equipment purchased in prior years for OSCs.
• In an effort to strengthen its responder base during large-scale catastrophic incidents,
EPA will provide training to volunteers of the Response Support Corps (RSC) and/or as
part of an Incident Management Team (IMT). These volunteers provide critical support
in Headquarters and Regional Emergency Operations Centers and in assisting with
operations in the field. To ensure technical proficiency, this new cadre of response
personnel requires initial training and yearly refresher training to include exercises,
workshops, health and safety training, medical monitoring, and equipment acquisition, as
necessary. EPA currently has about 800 trained RSC and IMT members and estimates it
will need between 3,000 and 3,500 members to respond to five INS. The proposed
funding will allow the Agency to train a minimum of 700 volunteers to meet RSC and
IMT requirements.
• Continue to accelerate current efforts to build laboratory capacity and capability to
analyze, verify, and validate CWA samples during an INS. The Agency will maintain
and operate existing fixed CWA labs and Portable High-Throughput Integrated
Laboratory Identification System (PHILIS) units. A recent analysis has shown a
substantial gap between the Agency's current capacity and what may be needed to
analyze chemical and biological warfare agents. To continue to make progress towards
reducing that gap, EPA will purchase two additional PHILIS units to enhance the
Agency's mobile analytical capability for CWA and also will award three additional
grants and/or interagency agreements to state and/or Federal agencies for fixed CWA labs
to increase capacity. Working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the
Department of Defense, and the states, EPA will implement standard operating
procedures and standards of performance. The Agency will continue to actively
participate with the Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks, maintaining and
updating a laboratory compendium of Federal, state and commercial capabilities, and
maintain a chemical surety program. EPA also will work with DHS to implement a
competitive state grant for an All Hazards Receipt Facility.
• Headquarters and Regional Offices also will operate and maintain the Environmental
Laboratory Response Network (eLRN) to provide lab analysis for routine and emergency
response operations including a terrorist attack. In addition, in FY 2009, EPA plans to
enhance the eLRN through the improvement of an electronic data deliverable for use by
all eLRN laboratories.
546
-------
• 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 decision 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.
• Implement the NAR to maximize Regional interoperability and to ensure that EPA's
OSCs will be able to respond to terrorist threats and large-scale catastrophic incidents in
an effective and nationally consistent manner.
• Procure and operate an additional Airborne Spectral Photometric Environmental
Collection Technology (ASPECT) plane. The ASPECT provides aerial assistance to first
responders by rapidly collecting and processing chemical, visible, and radiological
information quickly and relaying the information directly to the command structure
during an INS. This technology has been used to assist the response community in over
50 incidents from ammonia releases to the recent Gulf Coast hurricanes. The existing
ASPECT plane is located in the center of the country and takes a minimum of three hours
to approach east and west coast targets which means any chemical or biological data
collected from plume will not include critical environmental information near the time of
the release. EPA proposes to locate the additional aircraft on the East Coast which will
reduce response times for acquiring real-time monitoring capabilities in the Region and
improve EPA's sampling and analysis efforts by expanding the geographic coverage.
• Develop the Rapidly Deployable Chemical Defense System (RDCDS) program, an
interagency strategy to enhance the Airborne Spectral Photometric Environmental
Collection Technology (ASPECT) program. RDCDS consists of both a ground and
airborne component. The ground component is being developed at a national lab and the
airborne component consists of the EPA ASPECT team. The RDCDS program will
accelerate the development of an automated chemical compound identification.
Automating compound identification involves the collection of field and laboratory data
on individual chemical compounds. This data is then used to generate chemical
compound filters which can be used in the rapid identification of the compound from the
large data sets collected during a response. These data points can then be rapidly marked
and geo-located by cross referencing to Global Positioning System (GPS) data sets. This
development effort will significantly increase the speed with which chemicals can be
identified, verified, mapped, and the data transmitted to first responders.
• Improve and enhance Agency systems to accept a wider variety of environmental data,
including sampling, monitoring, hazardous debris and facilities reconnaissance, and to
make these data easily and rapidly accessible for a variety of uses. Implementation of
these activities will create a seamless data flow from the field and laboratory to the
547
-------
various Incident Command System (ICS) units and to the general public. It also will
improve EPA's ability to make rapid and accurate response decisions and to keep the
public informed of health and environmental risks.
• Maintain and improve the Emergency Management Portal (EMP). FY 2009 will be the
first year for complete integration of the basic management modules (i.e., environmental
assessment, equipment, personnel, and decontamination). EPA will continue to manage,
collect, and validate new information including the portfolio content for new and existing
WMD agents as new decontamination techniques are developed or as other information
emerges from the scientific community.
• Maximize the effectiveness of EPA's involvement in national security events through
pre-deployments of assets such as emergency response personnel and field detection
equipment. Pre-deployments allow immediate response should an incident occur at a
national security event. EPA estimates it will participate in three pre-deployments in FY
2009.
• Conduct one WMD Decontamination Course for EPA OSCs, Special Teams, and
Response Support Corp personnel to improve decontamination preparedness for
biological, chemical, and radiological agents.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$633.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$3,500.0) This increase will allow EPA to accelerate efforts to build laboratory
capacity and capability to analyze, verify, and validate samples during an INS. Funding
will support two grants and/or IAGS to States and/or Federal agencies to build analytical
capacity for chemical warfare agents and procure a PHILIS unit to enhance the Agency's
mobile analytical capability for CWA.
• (+$2,200.0) This increase funds training for Response Support Corps and Incident
Management Team volunteers who provide critical support in Headquarters and Regional
Emergency Operations Centers and also assist with operations in the field during large-
scale catastrophic incidents.
• (+$3,000.0) This increase funds the procurement of an additional Airborne Spectral
Photometric Environmental Collection Technology (ASPECT) airplane to be located on
the East Coast which will reduce the response time for acquiring real-time monitoring
capabilities during large-scale catastrophic incidents.
548
-------
• (+$500.0) This increase will improve and enhance emergency response data systems to
allow for a seamless data flow from the field and laboratory to Incident Command
System units and to the general public.
• (+$1,460.0) This increase will fund Regional homeland security training opportunities,
participation at agency and interagency exercises designed to better prepare for a large-
scale catastrophic incident, and associated travel to support the Regions' emergency
response duties.
• (+$754.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs. This increase will support Regional emergency preparedness
activities.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA Sections 104, 105, 106; Clean Water Act; Oil Pollution Act.
549
-------
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure
Program Area: Homeland Security
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Restore Land
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
Super fund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$6,219.1
$2,023.9
$10,372.2
$636. 7
$19,251.9
2.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,345.0
$594.0
$7,870.0
$594.0
$15,403.0
3.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,248.0
$585.0
$7,747.0
$585.0
$15,165.0
3.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$6,415.0
$594.0
$8,070.0
$1,194.0
$16,273.0
3.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$167.0
$9.0
$323.0
$609.0
$1,108.0
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. The program also includes the personnel security clearance process,
protecting any classified information, and providing necessary secure communications.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to update its physical security vulnerability assessments and also continue the
mitigation of medium vulnerabilities at the Agency's 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 essential functions from its remote alternate site(s),
including interagency operations. In FY 2009, EPA plans to support training activities and to
participate in a major interagency COOP exercise (Pinnacle/Forward Challenge) and an EPA
internal COOP exercise with Headquarters and the Regions. Also in FY 2009, EPA requests
increased resources to accelerate plans to work toward meeting the requirements of National
Communications System Directive (NCSD) 3-10, through the purchase, installation, and
maintenance of secure communications equipment for primary and alternate Headquarters COOP
sites.
550
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$600.0) This increase will support the purchase, installation, and maintenance of
secure communications equipment at primary and alternate Headquarters COOP sites.
• (+$9.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
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.).
551
-------
Program Area: Information Exchange / Outreach
552
-------
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
Super fund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$49,193.3
$137.5
$49,330.8
375.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$49,747.0
$155.0
$49,902.0
379.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$48,971.0
$154.0
$49,125.0
365.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$49,756.0
$0.0
$49,756.0
372.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$785.0
($154.0)
$631.0
6.9
Program Project Description:
The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program contributed to the mission of this program
by disseminating information about Superfund-related enforcement actions, compliance
monitoring, and the availability of compliance assistance. Some of the tools used to inform
stakeholders included: monthly Enforcement Alerts, regular news briefs about enforcement and
compliance assistance activities, and a website with easily accessible tools for retrieving
information.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program will not be requesting funding in FY 2009
for the Congressional, Intergovernmental, External Relations program. Instead, the program will
redirect these functions to the compliance incentives program in the EPM appropriation and the
Superfund: Enforcement program in the Superfund appropriation. Program functions that will be
redirected include information updates on enforcement actions, compliance monitoring, and the
availability of compliance assistance. Additionally, some of the tools used to inform
stakeholders that also will be redirected as a part of the program include: monthly Enforcement
Alerts, regular news briefs about enforcement and compliance assistance activities, and a website
with easily accessible tools for retrieving information.
Performance Targets:
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
553
-------
serve. These tools assist in building a greater understanding of CERCLA and Superfund related
issues for the enforcement program's many stakeholders. The Congressional, Intergovernmental,
External Relations program project supported this effort.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$128.0 / -1.1 FTE) This reduction will redirect Superfund resources that have been used
to disseminate information about various enforcement-related events and milestones.
The functions of the Superfund portion of this program will not be eliminated and will be
redirected for administrative efficiency to the compliance incentives program in the
Environmental Program and Management appropriation and the Superfund Enforcement
program in the Hazardous Substance Superfund appropriation.
• (-$26.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs
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.
554
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$17,541.7
$1,374.2
$18,915.9
30.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,364.0
$1,433.0
$16,797.0
24.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$15,137.0
$1,411.0
$16,548.0
24.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$18,058.0
$1,433.0
$19,491.0
24.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,921.0
$22.0
$2,943.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
This program supports the development and maintenance of the National Environmental
Information Exchange Network (the Exchange Network). The Exchange Network is an
integrated information network using standardized data formats and definitions to facilitate
information sharing among EPA and its partners across the Internet. 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 and data exchanges with our partners. 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-
Government (e-Gov) initiatives such as e-Rulemaking, e-Authentication, electronic information
management, and data standards.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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 2004 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 CDX.
After 2007, all 50 states, one territory, and seven tribes will have nodes on the Exchange Network
and will be using it to send data to EPA and share data with other partners. In FY 2009, EPA,
states, as well as more 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 data formats called schemas. These efforts will be closely
555
-------
coordinated with the Agency's program offices and the Agency's system of data registries. As
data flows are added, the broader use of data standards (quality 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 data 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 2007
Actual
37
FY 2007
Target
36
FY 2008
Target
45
FY 2009
Target
60
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 2007
Actual
88,516
FY 2007
Target
55,000
FY 2008
Target
100,000
FY 2009
Target
110,000
Units
Users
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$22.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
FACA; GISRA; CERCLA; CAA and amendments; CWA and amendments; ERD & DAA;
TSCA; FIFRA; FQPA; SOW A; and amendments; FFDCA; EPCRA; CERCLA; SARA; GPRA;
GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; CSA; PR; EFOIA.
556
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
557
-------
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
Super fund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$4,291.9
$562.3
$4,854.2
10.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,583.0
$792.0
$6,375.0
15.8
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,504.0
$780.0
$6,284.0
15.8
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$5,790.0
$801.0
$6,591.0
15.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$286.0
$21.0
$307.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Information Security program protects the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of
EPA's information assets. This program also 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue its technical and system analyses evaluations and assessments to
maintain the security of EPA's information. Constant system and network monitoring is
essential to detect and identify potential weaknesses or vulnerabilities that might otherwise
compromise EPA's information assets. These proactive efforts allow EPA to develop cost
effective solutions that bolster 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.
Effective information security is a constantly moving target. Every year, Agency managers are
challenged with responding to increasingly creative and sophisticated attempts to breach
organizational protections. The goal of the Agency's Information Security program is to
effectively protect the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of EPA's information assets
558
-------
amid the evolving risks that are present in a fully networked world. The Agency's Information
Security program uses a defense-in-depth approach that includes partnering with other Federal
agencies and states, integrating information security into day-to-day business operations, and
aggressively responding to evolving threats and computer security alerts and incidents. The
program is based on a successful implementation of the Federal Risk Management Framework
mandated by the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). This is a collective
effort to harden the Agency's diverse and distributed IT environments in accordance with federal
security standards.
The foundation for the Federal Risk Management Framework is a requirement that Agency
managers understand the protection requirements of the information they use while fulfilling the
Agency's mission operations. Based upon that understanding, managers must ensure appropriate
federal security standards are implemented, that security standard decisions are documented, and,
most importantly, that implementation is rigorously monitored to ensure the protection remains
effective. The Information Security program assists Agency managers in implementing these
requirements as well as preparing and providing periodic mandated reports to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress. Failing to securely manage Agency information
and information systems could severely disrupt the Agency's ability to fulfill its environmental
mission. A breach of confidentiality, such as a release of sensitive personally identifiable
information (PII), could do significant harm to individuals as well as impacting the Agency's
budgetary decisions and harming the Agency's credibility. Breaches of integrity and availability
could severely impact confidence in the reliability of Agency information. If such breaches
accompanied an emergency of some kind, it would negatively affect the Agency's emergency
response.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Federal
Information Security
Management Act
reportable systems
that are certified and
accredited.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$14.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$7.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects in
addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
FISMA; GPRA; GMRA; CCA; PRA; FOIA; PR; EFOIA.
559
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$99,196.3
$4,522.1
$136.5
$23.8
575,975.5
$119,854.2
497.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$91,019.0
$3,499.0
$177.0
$34.0
$16,338.0
$111,067.0
488.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$90,753.0
$3,453.0
$174.0
$33.0
$16,083.0
$110,496.0
488.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$94,360.0
$3,859.0
$162.0
$24.0
$16,872.0
$115,277.0
488.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,607.0
$406.0
($12.0)
($9.0)
$789.0
$4,781.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Agency offices rely on the IT/Data Management Superfund program and its capabilities to
develop and implement tools for ready access to accurate and timely data. This program houses
all of the critical IT infrastructure that allows efficient exchange and storage of data, analysis and
computations. It also allows access to the scientific, regulatory, and best practice information
needed by agency staff, the regulated community, and the public. These functions are integral to
the implementation of Agency information technology programs and systems like the Exchange
Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX), and the Permit Compliance System (PCS). Recent
partnerships include portals projects with the offices of Research and Development (ORD) and
Air and Radiation (OAR) to access scientific and program data. Because the IT/Data
Management function supports the entire Agency, funds are provided in each operating
appropriation including Superfund.
This program manages and coordinates the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and develops
analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound environmental decision-making.
The program implements the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov) responsibilities and 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
560
-------
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.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA's Information Technology community will continue to focus on improving the
Agency's use of technology, pursuing enterprise solutions, and protecting privacy and security of
data holdings while improving delivery of information and services to partners and citizens. 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.
The Environmental Information program's FY 2009 technology efforts have three major
components:
• OEI's efforts in the areas of Analytical Capacity and Indicators is expected to help
identify data gaps, and suggest areas where additional capacity is needed;
• Through use of the portal and Exchange Network, the Technology Initiative program will
increase the integration of quality data, streamline transactions to foster collaboration,
reduce the data entry burden, and improve decision making;
• OEI's Readiness to Serve initiative will build the capacity and infrastructure needed to
allow more EPA employees to telecommute or work safely and securely in the field.
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 efforts and its focus areas work together to advance data analyses and the
development of an analytical tool kit, including environmental indicators. These efforts will be
reflected in the next "Report on the Environment." That document has two major components,
the science document and the summary document, both of which are expected to be released to
the public in mid-2008.
Technology efforts in FY 2009 for EPA's Integrated Portal activities include implementing
identity and access management solutions, and integrating geospatial tools. 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, over time, into a single resource on a standard platform which is
561
-------
accessible to everyone in the Agency, reducing data and document search time and assisting in
security and information retention efforts.
EPA's infrastructure program will continue to deliver secure information services to ensure that
the Agency and its programs have a full range of information technology infrastructure
components (e.g., user equipment, network connectivity, e-mail, application hosting, and remote
access) that make information accessible across the spectrum of mission needs at all locations.
The program uses performance-based, outsourced services to obtain the best solutions (value for
cost) for the range of program needs. This includes innovative multi-year leasing that sustains
and renews technical services in a least-cost, stable manner as technology changes over time
(e.g., desktop hardware, software and maintenance). Physical infrastructure is a challenge
because demands on bandwidth increase as system capabilities and public users grow.
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.
In FY 2009, EPA continues active participation in nine government-wide E-government
initiatives and six Lines of Business. Through these projects, EPA will implement consolidated
practices used to manage information technology, improve access and tools for analysis of
environmental information, create new approaches to allow citizens and businesses to more
directly participate in Agency rulemaking activities, and develop enterprise solutions for our
internal business practices. EPA contributions to the initiatives are intended to ensure
efficiency, economy, and security in federal IT investments and systems used by federal
employees, partners, stakeholders and citizens.
IT/Data Management efforts are integral to the Exchange Network and Information Security
programs. Together these programs work to design, develop and deploy secure systems and
analytical tools to promote sound environmental decision-making.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$309.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$380.0) This increase reflects a restoration of funds that were reduced in this program
in FY 2008 for anticipated Agency-wide IT/infrastructure savings pending analysis of
final costing. The Agency has completed its analysis and reduced its estimate of the
562
-------
savings associated with changes to IT/infrastructure. Funding changes have been
incorporated across the board for FY 2009 IT/infrastructure costs.
• (+$100.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs
• (+0.5 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills, and Agency priorities.
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.
563
-------
Program Area: Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
564
-------
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
Super fund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$970.5
$1,020.6
$1,991.1
6.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$1,175.0
$837.0
$2,012.0
7.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,160.0
$825.0
$1,985.0
7.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$1,264.0
$846.0
$2,110.0
7.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$104.0
$21.0
$125.0
0.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$51.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
565
-------
• (-$30.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
566
-------
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
Super fund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$38,242.4
$826.8
$39,069.2
240.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,366.0
$606.0
$39,972.0
247.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$39,480.0
$740.0
$40,220.0
247.2
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$39,925.0
$631.0
$40,556.0
247.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$445.0
($109.0)
$336.0
0.0
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) and other entities and landowners involved in the program.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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, and drafting assistance
on, 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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$115.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
567
-------
• (-$224.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
combined with several changes in IT, travel or other support costs.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's General Authorizing Statutes.
568
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
569
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$327,954.1
$32,886.2
$28,672.1
$848.5
$500.4
$70,265.0
$461,126.3
399.2
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
Enacted
$297,189.0
$72,707.0
$26,511.0
$887.0
$488.0
$73,787.0
$471,569.0
415.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$311,068.0
$74,884.0
$26,931.0
$902.0
$496.0
$76,270.0
$490,551.0
410.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$13,879.0
$2,177.0
$420.0
$15.0
$8.0
$2,483.0
$18,982.0
-5.3
Program Project Description:
Superfund resources in the Facilities Infrastructure and Operations Program Project are used to
fund rent, utilities, 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 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. Because this program supports the entire Agency,
funds are included in most appropriations.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
For FY 2009, the Agency is requesting a total of $45,353 thousand for rent; $3,042 thousand for
utilities; $6,524 thousand for security; $2,226 thousand for transit subsidy; and $2,505 thousand
for regional moves in the Superfund appropriation. The Agency also will continue to manage its
lease agreements with General Services Administration 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.
570
-------
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 toward
acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and more fuel-efficient passenger cars and light trucks to meet
the goals set by Executive Order (EO) 134239, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy,
and Transportation Management. Additionally, the Agency will attain the EO's goals through
several initiatives, including comprehensive facility energy audits; re-commissioning;
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 13ISO10 Federal
Workforce Transportation. EPA will continue its integration of Environmental Management
Systems (EMS) across the Agency, consistent with requirements of EO 13423u. EPA will
advance the implementation of Safety and Health Management Systems to identify and mitigate
potential safety and health risks in the workplace. EPA will continue to provide safety, health,
and environmental services that help maintain EPA's readiness to respond to national
emergencies—protecting its employees and responsibly managing the environmental and safety
hazards of samples associated with weapons of mass destruction.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$545.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$83.0) This represents an increase in resources for transit subsidy.
• (+$1,058.0) This increase will provide additional resources for projected increases in
rent. The total includes the restoration of the 1.56% recession to all program projects.
• (+$614.0) This increase will provide additional resources for projected increases in
utility costs. The total includes the restoration of the 1.56% recession to all program
projects.
• (-$137.0) This decrease reflects projected security cost savings in FY 2009.
• (+$320.0) This reflects the balance of the restored 1.56% rescission to all program
projects to fund other operations support costs.
9 Information available at http://www. fedcenter. gov/programs/eo 134237
10 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
1' Information available at http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3423/
571
-------
• (+3.5 FTE) This reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; Annual Appropriations
Act; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; CWA; CAA; RCRA;
TSCA; NEPA; CERFA; D.C. Recycling Act of 1988; EPACT of 2005; Executive Orders 10577,
12598, 13150 and 13423; Emergency Support Functions (ESF) #10 Oil and Hazardous Materials
Response Annex; Presidential Decision Directive 63 (Critical Infrastructure).
572
-------
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
Super fund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$20,564.5
$2,671.4
$23,235.9
169.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$23,439.0
$3,049.0
$26,488.0
177.5
FY 2008
Enacted
$23,242.0
$3,001.0
$26,243.0
177.5
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$25,977.0
$3,116.0
$29,093.0
177.5
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,735.0
$115.0
$2,850.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Grants and Interagency Agreements comprise more than 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 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. Sound
grants management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs. A
portion of the Superfund program is implemented through lAGs with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Coast Guard.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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.12 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,
1 US EPA, EPA Grants Management Plan. EPA-216-R-03-001, April 2003, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/finalreport.pdf.
573
-------
performing indirect cost rate reviews, providing Tribal technical assistance, and implementing
its Agency-wide training program for project officers, grant specialists, and managers.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from the FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$115.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE
combined with the restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act; Section 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts: 30, 31, 35, 40, 45, 46, and 47.
574
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$23,654.1
$223.1
$19,129.3
$43,006.5
340.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,992.0
$165.0
$24,645.0
$54,802.0
357.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$28,629.0
$162.0
$24,327.0
$53,118.0
357.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$31,195.0
$165.0
$24,985.0
$56,345.0
362.9
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,566.0
$3.0
$658.0
$3,227.0
5.6
Program Project Description:
Sound contract management fosters efficiency and effectiveness assisting all of EPA's programs.
Superfund resources in this program support contract and acquisition management at
Headquarters, Regional Offices, Research Triangle Park and Cincinnati facilities. 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to implement its new acquisition system, scheduled to be
deployed in FY 2010. 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. Further, the system itself is obsolete; and therefore an upgrade
is not cost-efficient.
The new system will provide the Agency with a better, more comprehensive way to manage data
on contracts that support mission-oriented planning and evaluation. This will allow the Agency
to reach the 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.
575
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,061.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTEs.
• (-$403.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to several technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel and other
support costs across programs.
• (-4.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources such as Regional contract management workload, skills
and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; contract law.
576
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$39,740.2
$3.0
$5,203.0
$44,946.2
298.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$40,175.0
$3.0
$5,036.0
$45,214.0
296.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$39,760.0
$3.0
$4,969.0
$44,732.0
296.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$43,646.0
$3.0
$5,063.0
$48,712.0
304.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,886.0
$0.0
$94.0
$3,980.0
8.3
Program Project Description:
Superfund resources in this program support activities related to the provision of human capital
and human resources management services to the entire Agency. EPA supports organizational
development and management activities through 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Agency will continue its efforts to strengthen its workforce by focusing on key
areas to further develop our existing talent, and by strengthening our recruitment and hiring
programs. EPA also remains committed to fully implementing EPA's Strategy for Human
Capital13, which was issued in December 2003 and updated in 2005. As a result of that review,
the desired outcomes for each strategy were strengthened to focus on measurable results. In FY
2009, the Agency will continue its multi-year 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.
' US EPA, Investing in Our People II, EPA's Strategy for Human Capital. Available at http: //www.epa. go v/oarm/strategy .pdf
577
-------
• Shortening the hiring timeframes for the Senior Executive Service (SES) and non-SES
positions through improved automation and enhancements to application process.
• Implementing innovative recruitment and hiring flexibilities that address personnel
shortages in mission-critical occupations.
As part of these activities, EPA will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Agency human
resources operations by establishing Shared Service Centers. These Shared Service Centers will
process personnel and benefits actions for EPA's 17,000 employees, as well as vacancy
announcements. The establishment of Human Resources Shared Service Centers reflects EPA's
ongoing commitment to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Agency operations. The
Centers will enhance the timeliness and quality of customer service and standardize work
processes.
In addition, EPA will continue to streamline human resources management by employing the E-
gov 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.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$77.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$17.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
combined with several technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other
support costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
Title V USC; FAIR Act.
578
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$64,431.2
$812.6
$20,428.7
$85,672.5
519.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$74,960.0
$1,102.0
$24,306.0
$100,368.0
530.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$73,949.0
$1,085.0
$24,008.0
$99,042.0
530.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$80,623.0
$1,131.0
$26,102.0
$107,856.0
538.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,674.0
$46.0
$2,094.0
$8,814.0
8.1
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency works to ensure sound financial and budgetary management though the use of
routine and ad hoc analysis, statistical sampling and other evaluation tools. In addition, more
structured and more targeted use of performance measurements has led to better understanding
of program impacts as well as leverage points to increase effectiveness.
EPA will continue efforts to modernize the Agency's financial systems and business processes.
The Agency is working to 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 allow the Agency to improve efficiency and automate quality control
functions to simplify use of the system as well as comply with Congressional direction and new
579
-------
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.
In FY 2009, 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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$669.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$880.0) This increase is to cover revised estimates of the expected FY 2009
expenditures for the Financial Replacement System (FinRS) Capital Investment project.
• (-$45.0) This decrease realigns funds between Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance
and Superfund Enforcement/Cost Recovery in the FY 2009 President's Budget. These
funds support financial cost recovery activities.
• (+$590.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects combined with small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel, or
other support costs across programs. The restored funds will support continuity in
provision of the financial services for the Agency and baseline financial systems
operations.
• (-0.3 FTE) The change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
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);
580
-------
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.
581
-------
Program Area: Research: Human Health And Ecosystems
582
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$35,018.0
$3,926. 4
$38,944.4
176.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$38,856.0
$3,972.0
$42,828.0
182.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$38,334.0
$3,910.0
$42,244.0
182.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$39,323.0
$3,325.0
$42,648.0
178.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$989.0
($585.0)
$404.0
-3.5
Program Project Description:
The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) program provides health hazard assessments and
develops assessment methods. It supports Superfund in the following areas:
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)14, Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values
(PPRTVs), and other health hazard assessments: Based on the expressed needs of EPA's Solid
Waste and Emergency Response program, this program prepares IRIS hazard characterization
and dose-response profiles for environmental pollutants of specific relevance to site assessments
and remediation. Where IRIS values are unavailable, the HHRA program develops PPRTVs for
evaluating chemical specific exposures at Superfund sites. Support for these PPRTV
assessments is provided through the Superfund Technical Support Centers.
Risk assessment guidance, methods, and model development: Improving risk assessment
guidance, methods, and models to support Superfund includes the development of exposure-
response data arrays, revised RfC methodology and cumulative risk tools to better estimate
potential effects of exposures at Superfund sites on humans and the consultative support
necessary for the application of these methods.
Superfund research is guided by the long term Waste Research Strategy15, which was developed
with participation from major clients and outlines research needs and priorities. These research
efforts are guided by multi-year plans (MYPs)16, 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.
16 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.
583
-------
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 MYP17.
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) had made several key advancements including
completion of a strategic plan, targeting cutting-edge risk assessments, enhancing
communication, and improving capabilities to provide environmental assessments resources in
response to significant events. A subsequent BOSC subcommittee program review began in
November 2007. This prospective and retrospective review is evaluating the program's
relevance, quality, performance, and scientific leadership. The BOSC's evaluation and
recommendations will provide guidance to EPA to help plan, implement, and strengthen the
program over the next five years.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the HHRA program (FY 2009 Request, $3.3 million) will continue to directly
support key elements of EPA's Strategic Plan relating to Superfund - particularly the
characterization of risks, reduction of contaminant exposures, and cleanup of contaminated sites
(FY 2009 Request, $3 million). Risk assessment activities relevant to Superfund cleanups will
include:
• 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 (also supported by HHRA under
the Science and Technology appropriation);
• 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, provisional reference doses/concentrations (pRfD/Cs), and/or cancer
slope factors for priority pollutants to support Agency risk assessments;
» Preparing a draft update of the Exposure Factors Handbook for external review, collating
exposure information for use in Superfund site assessments (also supported by HHRA in
the Science and Technology appropriation); and
• Providing technical support to Superfund site and program managers on human health
risk assessment through the Superfund Technical Support Centers.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the program as "moderately effective" in a
2006 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review, which was conducted under the program
title "Human Health Risk Assessment."18 This "moderately effective" rating was attributed to
the fact that the program had long-term, annual, and efficiency measures in place, and that the
17 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/hhramypdraft.pdf.
18 For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10004308.2006.html
584
-------
program exhibited strong financial management and budget-performance integration. In response
to OMB recommendations following the 2006 PART, the program is currently 1) expanding its
efficiency measures, 2) developing and implementing revisions to the IRIS review process, 3)
investigating alternative approaches for measuring progress related to providing timely, high
quality scientific assessments, and 4) instituting regular independent program reviews. The
program has taken action on each of these recommendations. For example, for a BOSC review
that began in November 2007, it developed a BOSC charge including questions to evaluate
HHRA's effectiveness and relevance to key risk management decisions. The program also is
examining how best to expand its efficiency measure to ensure consistency with other
approaches being developed across the Research and Development program and is discussing
ways to improve the IRIS prioritization process with OMB.
Performance Targets:
The research conducted under this program supports EPA Strategic Objective 4.4. Specifically,
the program identifies and synthesizes the best available scientific information, models, methods,
and analyses to support Agency guidance and policy decisions related to the health of people and
communities.
The program gauges its annual and long-term success in meeting this objective by assessing its
progress on several key measures. In 2009, the program plans to meet at least 90% of its planned
outputs in support of 1) HHRA Health assessments and 2) HHRA Technical Support Documents.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$76.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$730.0) This reflects a reduction in funding for lower priority research on exposure
assessments. This may delay support for science-based decision making in EPA's
regulatory and cleanup programs.
• (+$69.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; ERDDA.
585
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
586
-------
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
Super fund
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$10,907.3
$657.0
$841.3
$23,859.1
$36,264.7
134.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,737.0
$660.0
$901.0
$20,081.0
$32,379.0
141.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,591.0
$650.0
$887.0
$19,768.0
$31,896.0
141.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$13,350.0
$413.0
$704.0
$21,021.0
$35,488.0
154.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,759.0
($237.0)
($183.0)
$1,253.0
$3,592.0
13.4
Program Project Description:
The Land Research Program provides essential research to EPA's Superfund program and
Regional Offices to enable them to accelerate scientifically defensible and cost-effective
decisions for cleanup at complex contaminated sites. Research themes include: contaminated
sediments, ground water, and multi-media issues. 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." These research efforts are guided by the Land Research
Program Multi-Year Plan (MYP)19 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.
The Land Protection and Restoration research program was externally 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
19 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Land Research Program MYP. Washington, DC : EPA. For more
information, see
587
-------
program generates high quality products and conducts appropriately focused multi-disciplinary
research.20
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, research will continue to advance EPA's ability to accurately characterize the
transport and uptake of chemicals from contaminated sediments and determine the range and
scientific foundation for remedy selection options by improving site characterization, monitoring
the effectiveness of remediation and evaluation of novel remedial options. This work directly
supports the program's long term goal for the mitigation, management and long-term
stewardship of contaminated sites. Documented remediation methods and data are vital to
developing new cost-effective methods for managing high-cost decisions at controversial,
extensively contaminated sites. Continuing work that the BOSC evaluation found is "being
developed in a timely way to characterize contaminated sediments accurately and quickly... [and
is] sought actively by clients to achieve contaminant cleanups quickly," the contaminated
sediments research integrates exposure models, ecological effects and remediation research in
order to improve the understanding of best management practices related to Superfund sites.
Consistent with the National Research Council's report, "Sediment Dredging at Superfund
Megasites: Assessing the Effectiveness,"21 EPA will continue the development of alternative
sediment remedies with the potential to be more effective than conventional dredging.
In addition, research aimed at developing data to support dosimetric and toxicologic assessment
of amphibole asbestos fiber-containing material from Libby, Montana will be conducted. This
effort would address key data gaps and provide tools for quantitative characterization, including
a comparative analysis of the toxicity of amphibole asbestos-contaminated vermiculite from
Libby, Montana relative to other asbestos fibers and asbestos-like mineral occurrences.
The transport of contaminants in ground water and the subsequent intrusion of contaminant
vapors into buildings is a critical research issue for EPA's Superfund remediation programs.
Work is ongoing to develop reliable soil gas sampling methodologies and to improve vapor
intrusion modeling capability. In FY 2009, a report on the vertical distribution of volatile
organic compounds (VOC's) from the groundwater to soil will be released to be used as an
analytical remediation tool. Permeable reactive barriers (PRB) and the potential expansion of
this technology from the treatment of chlorinated organic compounds to inorganic compound
will be a major research effort. PRBs are a technology to replace pump and treat methods.
Research efforts will also address monitored natural attenuation, specific contamination issues
for metals, and treatment of dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs).
Research under the multi-media theme includes the development of analytical methods, field
sampling guidance, statistical software, monitoring and remediation technologies for mining sites
and technical support infrastructure needed to move the products of these research and
development activities from the lab and into the hands of site managers and other decision
makers. In 2009, immunoassay studies are planned in order to compare techniques that will
20 BOSC Land Restoration and Preservation Research Subcommittee Report. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/OSP/bosc/pdf/land0603rpt.pdf
21 For more information, see http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID= 11968
588
-------
allow rapid on-site characterization of contaminant concentration profiles at the Superfund sites.
EPA will continue to provide technical support to Superfund project managers via 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., engineering and ground water issues) and technology transfer products to EPA program
offices and other stakeholders. TSCs provide information based on research results to increase
the speed and quality of Superfund cleanups and reduce associated cleanup costs. Development
of human health toxicity values and technical support activities are discussed and conducted
under the Human Health Risk Assessment Program.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the program as "adequate" in its 2006
PART review, which was conducted under the program title "Land Protection and Restoration
Research."22 This "adequate" rating was supported by findings that the program had long-term
and annual output performance measures in place that reflected the purpose of the program, as
well as a strong strategic and evaluation approach. In response to OMB recommendations
following the 2006 PART, the program has established a process by which the BOSC will assign
a performance rating to each program long-term goal as part of its reviews. These ratings will
provide the data for new program long-term outcome measures that will be instated. Using the
progress rating expected from the 2008 BOSC review, the program will be able to set appropriate
future year targets. Additionally, to address OMB's recommendation that the program establish
an outcome-oriented efficiency measure, EPA has initiated a National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) study to determine the most appropriate approach. Further, to improve its collection of
partner performance information, EPA's Research and Development program is updating its
Policy and Procedures Manual on Extramural Resources Management to require that all research
and development grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements be linked to one or more Multi-
Year Plan Long-Term Goals (LTGs).
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 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
30.5
FY 2008
Target
29
FY 2009
Target
28
Units
Days
! For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html
589
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the
managed material
streams, conserve
resources and
appropriately manage
waste long-term goal.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of planned
outputs delivered in
support of the
mitigation,
management and long-
term stewardship of
contaminated sites
long-term goal.
FY 2007
Actual
100
FY 2007
Target
100
FY 2008
Target
100
FY 2009
Target
100
Units
Percent
Work under this program supports EPA's Strategic Plan Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and
Research. Specifically, the program provides and applies sound science for protecting and
restoring land by conducting leading-edge research, which, through collaboration, leads to
preferred environmental outcomes.
In 2009, the program plans to accomplish its goals of completing and delivering 100 percent of
its planned outputs. Additionally, the program plans to meet its efficiency goal of reducing to 28
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. 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 achieving the performance
targets, the program will contribute to EPA's goal of applying sound science in the protection
and restoration of land.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,293.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$336.0 / +5.0 FTE) This increase reflects support for the asbestos research program.
The Libby asbestos action plan has been driven by concern for the health effects of Libby
amphibole. The research and development portion of the Libby asbestos action plan has
been peer reviewed both externally and internally, and research which has a short time
590
-------
line is being initiated, as the goal is to provide input into the risk characterization by
2011.
• (-$688.0) A portion of this reduction will discontinue superfund technical support for
site-specific characterization, modeling, monitoring, assessment and remediation of
contaminated sites. There also will be delays in developing a framework for modeling
fate and transport of contaminants, however, this work will continue.
• (+$312.0) This change reflects the 1.56% rescission to all program projects in addition to
small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support costs across
programs. The increase will support higher priority work, such as contaminated
sediments research to develop alternative sediment remedies and permeable reactive
barrier technology, in the land protection and restoration research program.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
591
-------
Program Area: Research: Sustainability
592
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$24,864.5
$212.3
$25,076.8
81.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$22,478.0
$0.0
$22,478.0
76.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$22,127.0
$0.0
$22,127.0
76.2
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$19,970.0
$0.0
$19,970.0
70.8
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($2,157.0)
$0.0
($2,157.0)
-5.4
Program Project Description:
23
Under the Small Business Research (SBIR) Program , as required by the Small Business Act as
amended24, 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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• The 2.5% set-aside will be identified when the FY 2009 budget is enacted.
Statutory Authority:
CAA; CWA; FIFRA; PPA; RCRA; SOW A; SBA; SARA; TSCA.
23 For more information, see http://es.epa.gov/ncer/sbir.
24 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:.
593
-------
Program Area: Superfund Cleanup
594
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$222,093.7
$222,093.7
290.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$191,880.0
$191,880.0
288.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$190,011.0
$190,011.0
288.4
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$193,853.0
$193,853.0
292.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,842.0
$3,842.0
4.0
Program Project Description:
The Superfund program was initially designed, and has been consistently used, to implement two
complementary types of response actions: remedial actions to fully address wastes at the largest,
most complex contamination sites (i.e., National Priorities List (NPL) sites); and removal actions
to quickly address those releases, whether on the NPL or not, that pose a threat to public health
or welfare or the environment; the Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program
describes the latter type.
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).
EPA, under this program and as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC)25, evaluates and
responds with emergency and removal actions to releases large and small. 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 respond effectively to accidental and intentional releases as well
as natural disasters.26
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA personnel assess, respond to, mitigate, and clean up thousands of releases, whether
accidental, deliberate, or naturally occurring. In FY 2009, EPA Federal OSCs will conduct
and/or provide support for removal assessments, emergency responses, and cleanup response
actions at NPL and non-NPL sites. In FY 2009, EPA will complete approximately 195
26
EPA's roles and responsibilities are further outlined in the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
For more information about the Superfund Emergency Response and Removal program, please refer to
http://www.epaosc.net/default.htm.
595
-------
Superfund-lead removal actions and oversee the completion of approximately 130 voluntary
removal actions.
In FY 2009, 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 part of its strategy for improving effectiveness, the Agency will improve response readiness
in FY 2009 through information obtained from the Agency's National Approach to Response
(NAR) committees and their accomplishments. NAR priorities provide the framework to
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 and 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). Also, in response to OMB
recommendations, EPA will initiate two new outcome performance measures in FY 2008, one
focused on human health and the other on acres ready for re-use. Based on its experience in FY
2008, EPA will establish baselines, modify these new measures as needed, and implement them
for FY 2009.
For several years, EPA has been implementing an annual assessment of its response and removal
preparedness, known as Core Emergency Response (ER). Core ER initiatives are expected to
achieve and maintain at least 95 percent of the maximum score on readiness evaluation criteria in
each Region and at Headquarters. Core ER was expanded to address Agencywide
implementation of EPA's NAR and measure its progress towards being ready to respond to up to
five simultaneous incidents of national significance. In FY 2007, Core ER criteria were revised
to improve preparedness, in line with the EPA 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. EPA will revise these
instruments annually or as needed to reflect experience.
Annual performance for the Superfund Removal program is measured by the number of
Superfund-lead removal actions completed, and the number of private party removal actions
overseen by EPA and completed. The PART efficiency measure for the program reflects the
number of Superfund-lead removal actions completed per million dollars. Both the Superfund-
lead and the voluntary removal measures contribute to the goals of EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic
Plan.
596
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Superfund-lead
removal actions
completed annually.
FY 2007
Actual
200
FY 2007
Target
195
FY 2008
Target
195
FY 2009
Target
195
Units
Removals
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Superfund-lead
removal actions
completed annually
per million dollars.
FY 2007
Actual
1.04
FY 2007
Target
0.92
FY 2008
Target
0.93
FY 2009
Target
0.94
Units
Removals
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Voluntary removal
actions, overseen by
EPA, completed.
FY 2007
Actual
151
FY 2007
Target
120
FY 2008
Target
125
FY 2009
Target
130
Units
Removals
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,175.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for all FTE.
• (+$1,667.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects in addition to technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs. These funds will enable the program to conduct removal actions
and perform removal support activities to respond to additional releases and threats that
may impact human health and the environment.
• (+4.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help
the Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities. The FTE were redirected
from the Superfund Remedial program and will be allocated at the Regional level to
bolster Emergency Response capabilities.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA, Sections 104, 105, 106; CWA; OPA.
597
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$9,101.6
$9,101.6
40.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,318.0
$9,318.0
44.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$9,195.0
$9,195.0
44.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$9,504.0
$9,504.0
44.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$309.0
$309.0
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 with
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.
FY 2009 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 2009 by improving internal and
external coordination with those agencies.
In FY 2009, 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. The NRT and the RRTs are the only
active environmentally-focused interagency executive committees addressing oil and hazardous
substance emergencies. EPA will continue to support and participate on these standing
committees.
598
-------
Building on current efforts to enhance 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 2009, 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 national disasters, emergencies
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, Incident
Advisory Council and the National Operations Center.
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to conduct an annual 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/Project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$262.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$47.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA; CWA; OP A; Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
599
-------
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 2007
Actuals
537,763.5
$31,763.5
138.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$31,879.0
$31,879.0
134.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$31,447.0
$31,447.0
134.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$31,440.0
$31,440.0
134.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($7.0)
($7.0)
0.0
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. Nationwide, there are many Federal
facilities which are contaminated with hazardous waste, military munitions, radioactive waste,
fuels, and a variety of other toxic contaminants. These facilities include various types of sites,
such as Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), active, realigning and closed installations,
abandoned mines, nuclear weapons production facilities, fuel distribution areas, and landfills.
The Agency fulfills a number of statutory and regulatory obligations at Federal facilities,
including conducting oversight of those sites on the Superfund National Priorities 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
program collaborates with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, tribes, and
communities.
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program also provides technical assistance to other
Federal entities, states, tribes, local governments, and communities during the cleanup of Federal
properties. One role of the program is to ensure statutory responsibilities related to the transfer
of contaminated Federal properties at both NPL and non-NPL sites are properly met. Such
responsibilities include approval of transfers prior to implementation of remedies at NPL sites
(i.e., early transfer), and approving determinations that remedies are operating "properly and
successfully" at both NPL and non-NPL sites. Often EPA, and the parties implementing the
remedies, face unique challenges due to the types of contamination present, the size of the
facility and extent of contamination, ongoing facility operations that need to continue, complex
community involvement requirements, and complexities related to the redevelopment of the
facilities. For more information about the program, please refer to MlSlIhlM^L^SJMi>oylfeM^
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Superfund Federal Facilities Response program will continue strengthening its efforts
towards ensuring the safe reuse of former Federal properties, as well as ensuring the safe
600
-------
continued use of facilities under the jurisdiction of the Federal government. The 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. At properties that will remain under Federal jurisdiction and control, the program will
work with the other Federal agencies to ensure that cleanup remedies are appropriate for
continued Federal use.
In FY 2009, the Superfund Federal Facilities Response program will continue focusing on
achieving site construction completions, accelerating cleanups, promoting reuse of current and
formerly owned Federal properties and ensuring appropriate community involvement. As of
October 2007, there were: 152 final Federal facilities on the NPL, 15 Federal facilities deleted
from the NPL, 5 Federal facilities proposed to be added to the NPL, 71 (41 percent) Federal
facilities with a final remedy selected, 59 (34 percent) Federal facilities that had achieved site
construction completion and 22 (13 percent) Federal facilities identified as site-wide ready for
anticipated use.
As of October 2007, the program was conducting oversight and/or providing technical assistance
on 404 ongoing Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) and 194 ongoing Remedial
Actions (RA) at 152 final NPL Federal facilities.
NPL Federal Facilities by Agency
(Proposed, Final and Deleted)
Other, 12
Department of Energy, 21
Nat'l Guard, 1
Navy, 54
Army, 44
Defense Logistics Agency, 3
Air Force, 37
Other Federal Agencies include: U.S. 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),
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (2), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1).
Source: FFRRO 's website, http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/npl2007.htmtf2
In FY 2009, EPA will continue providing oversight and technical assistance, as appropriate, at
DOD's military munitions response sites, including oversight of some FUDS with munitions.
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 cleanup of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program (FUSRAP) properties. FUSRAP properties are contaminated with radioactive
601
-------
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.
The program will continue monitoring the progress of five-year reviews being conducted at
Federal sites where waste has been left in place and land use is restricted as a result of that
contaminated waste. In FY 2009, the program will review approximately 28 five-year review
reports at Federal facility NPL sites to fulfill statutory requirements and inform the public
regarding the protectiveness of remedies at those facilities. Improving the quality and
consistency of five-year review reports is a priority for the program.
The program also 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).
Because the BRAC I-IV accelerated cleanup program is funded by DOD through an interagency
agreement expiring on September 30, 2008, EPA and DOD are currently negotiating a new
BRAC I-IV agreement with a proposed expiration date of September 30, 2011. The fifth round
of BRAC (BRAC V), finalized on November 9, 2005, has resulted in additional EPA work
requirements at selected BRAC V installations. This includes, but is not limited to, meeting and
expediting statutory obligations for overseeing cleanup and facilitating property transfer. The
Agency's FY 2009 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 entitled "EPA Support for Cleanup of Federal
Facilities" in FY 2005 and received an overall rating of "moderately effective." As follow-up to
the PART, the program has been working with other Federal agencies to achieve long-term
environmental measures. These efforts will continue in FY 2008. 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 implemented several of the resulting
recommendations in FY 2007 and will implement additional recommendations in FY 2008.
Another review of the program is currently being conducted which will analyze the program's
planning and data processes for cleanup milestones. Results and recommendations generated
from this review may be implemented as early as FY 2009.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Program dollars
expended annually per
operable unit
completing cleanup
activities.
FY 2007
Actual
1,019
FY 2007
Target
960
FY 2008
Target
920
FY 2009
Target
813
Units
Thousand
602
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of Federal
Facility Superfund
sites where the final
remedial decision for
contaminants at the
site has been
determined.
FY 2007
Actual
71
FY 2007
Target
76
FY 2008
Target
81
FY 2009
Target
85
Units
Remedies
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of Federal
Facility Superfund
sites where all
remedies have
completed
construction.
FY 2007
Actual
59
FY 2007
Target
56
FY 2008
Target
60
FY 2009
Target
64
Units
Sites
Performance goals and measures in EPA's Strategic Plan and Government Performance and
Results Act 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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$763.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$238.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel, or other support
costs across programs.
• (-$1,008.0) This decrease is primarily related to contract funding. A decrease to the
contracts budget will not impede the program's efforts to maximize efficiency and
effectiveness of mandatory requirements at Federal sites on the NPL.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA Section 120/SARA, Section 311; RCRA, Section 7003; 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, Section 3 [CERCLA 120(h)(4)
uncontaminated parcels determinations]; National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007,
Section 2404; NEPA, Section 102; and CAA, Section 309.
603
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$659,513.4
$659,513.4
960.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$584,836.0
$584,836.0
946.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$591,078.0
$591,078.0
946.2
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$586,120.0
$586,120.0
944.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($4,958.0)
($4,958.0)
-2.0
Program Project Description:
The Superfund Remedial program addresses contamination from uncontrolled releases at
Superfund sites that may threaten human health and the environment. Superfund sites with
contaminated soils, surface water, sediments, and groundwater exist nationally in hundreds of
communities and can also encompass very large land areas. Many of these sites are located in
urban areas and may expose populations to contamination. Once contaminated, groundwater,
surface water, sediments, and soils may be extremely technically challenging and costly to clean
up. Some sites will require decades to clean up due to site-specific physical characteristics and
their associated unique contamination footprints. For some sites, removing or destroying all of
the contamination is not possible, and residual contamination will need to be managed on-site,
creating the need for site-specific long-term stewardship activities.
The Superfund Remedial program manages the risks that these uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites present to human health and the environment through carefully selected cleanup,
stabilization, or other actions, and, in so doing, helps make these sites available for reuse.
Resources in this program are used to:
• collect and analyze data at sites to determine the potential effect of contaminants on
human health and the environment and the need for an EPA Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) response;
• ensure the highest priority sites are addressed by adding and deleting sites to/from the
National Priorities List (NPL);
• conduct or oversee investigations and studies to select remedies;
• design and construct or oversee construction of remedies and post-construction activities
at non-Federal facility sites;
• control human exposures to contamination and the spread of contaminated groundwater;
• ensure long-term protectiveness of remedies by overseeing operations and maintenance
and conducting five-year reviews;
• identify when sites can be made available for reuse; and
604
-------
• work with other Federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and local
communities to improve their involvement in the cleanup process.
For more information about the Superfund Remedial program, please refer to
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, as in prior years, cleanup work at contaminated sites on the NPL remains the top
priority of the Superfund Remedial program. The program will continue to address intractable
and complicated environmental and human health problems, such as contaminated soil and
groundwater affecting homeowners and their families in residential areas. The goal of the
program's work is ultimately to provide long-term human health and environmental 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 and the environment from the immediate threats posed by uncontrolled hazardous wastes
or contaminated groundwater, such as providing alternative drinking water supplies or relocating
residents. These efforts demonstrate the Agency's commitment to protecting human health and
the environment from possible short- and long-term effects of site-related contamination.
EPA will continue to assess uncontrolled releases at sites where EPA has been notified by states,
tribes, citizens, other Federal agencies, or other sources of a potential hazardous waste site or
incident. EPA assesses these sites to determine whether Federal action is needed. EPA plans to
complete 400 site assessment decisions in FY 2009.
For those sites requiring additional action to protect human health and the environment, EPA
uses the NPL to identify sites that are the highest priorities. Sites posing immediate risks may
also be addressed under authority of the Superfund Removal program. In FY 2009, EPA will
continue investigating sites to determine the best approach for individual sites to be addressed,
including listing them on the NPL. In FY 2007, EPA added 12 new sites on the NPL, and
proposed 17 sites to the NPL. As of the end of FY 2007, 1,635 sites were either proposed to,
final on, or deleted from the NPL, of which 172 were Federal facility sites.
At sites listed on the NPL, EPA will continue to begin remedial work with site investigations and
feasibility studies to review site conditions and evaluate strategies for cleanup, taking into
consideration reasonably anticipated future land use. At the end of FY 2007, EPA had more than
350 such investigations and studies underway, which form the foundation for remedy selection
documented in a Record of Decision (ROD). Many sites also require multiple cleanup plans to
address all the contamination at the site. A significant number of sites in FY 2009 will still
require further characterization before remedy decisions can be made and construction can take
place. Community involvement is a key component in selecting the proper remedy at a site, and
the Agency will continue to emphasize the importance of the community in its decision-making
and remedy implementation and construction activities.
EPA has increasingly focused resources on remedy construction to achieve site progress. Prior
to remedy construction, however, EPA conducts the remedial design (RD) for the site cleanup
605
-------
where the technical specifications for cleanup remedies and technologies are designed based on
the ROD. Following the RD, the actual construction or implementation of the cleanup remedy
will be performed (called the Remedial Action (RA)) by EPA (or states with EPA funding) or
potentially responsible parties under EPA or state oversight. EPA is committed to providing
resources to maintain adequate construction progress at all sites, including large and complicated
remedial projects, once construction has started. Funding for EPA Superfund construction
projects is critical to achieving risk reduction, construction completion, and restoration of
contaminated sites to allow productive reuse. In FY 2009, the program will continue to work
with Regions to improve long-term planning construction estimates, including planning for the
use of resources received from settlements with potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for future
response work.
EPA tracks construction completions as an interim measure of progress towards making sites
ready for reuse, and achieving site cleanup goals. Sites qualify for construction completion
when, 1) all necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or
other requirements have been achieved, 2) EPA has determined that the response action should
be limited to measures that do not involve construction, or 3) the site qualifies for deletion from
the NPL. EPA may delete a final NPL site if it determines that all cleanup objectives have been
met and no further response is required to protect human health or the environment. In FY 2009,
EPA will achieve 35 site construction completions for a cumulative total of 1,095 NPL sites, and
will continue to delete sites from the NPL as appropriate.
EPA will also continue to give attention to post-construction completion activities to ensure that
Superfund response actions provide for the long-term protection of human health and the
environment. Approximately 65 percent of NPL sites have achieved construction completion
and are in the post-construction phase of cleanup, while many other sites have achieved
completion of some aspects of their cleanups. One example of a post-construction activity are
Five-Year Reviews, which generally are required when hazardous substances remain on site
above levels that permit unrestricted use and unlimited exposure to evaluate the implementation
and performance of a remedy and determine whether it remains protective of human health and
the environment. These reviews are usually performed five years following the initiation of a
CERCLA response action, and are repeated in succeeding five-year intervals so long as future
uses remain restricted. EPA plans to conduct over 200 Five-Year Reviews in FY 2009. In
addition, the Agency will continue to need resources to conduct activities to ensure remedies are
working optimally and as intended at sites where any hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remain above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
Redevelopment at NPL sites helps communities return some of the nation's worst hazardous
waste sites to safe and productive uses. While cleaning up these Superfund sites and making
them protective of human health and the environment, EPA is working with communities and
other partners in considering future use opportunities and integrating appropriate reuse options
into the cleanup process. The Agency is also working with communities on already remediated
sites to ensure long-term stewardship of site remedies to create opportunities for reuse. As a
means of more consistently summarizing land revitalization impacts and outcomes, EPA
developed the Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use measure. The measure identifies
construction complete Superfund NPL sites where the entire land portion of the site is being
606
-------
used, or has been made ready to use in the future, in a protective fashion. 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. In FY 2009, EPA will work towards making 30 sites
qualified for this designation.
EPA introduced two measures in FY 2002 to document progress achieved towards providing
short- and long-term human health protection. The Site-Wide Human Exposure environmental
indicator is designed to document the progress achieved towards providing long-term human
health protection on a site-wide basis by measuring the incremental progress achieved in
controlling unacceptable current human exposures at a site. In FY 2009, EPA will achieve
control of all identified unacceptable human exposures at a net total of 10 additional sites,
bringing the program's cumulative total to 1,302 sites under control. The Migration of
Contaminated Ground Water Under Control environmental indicator applies to NPL sites that
contain contaminated ground water to document whether contamination levels fall within the
levels specified as safe by EPA, or if they do not, whether the migration of contaminated ground
water is stabilized, and there is no ground water discharge to surface water. In FY 2009, EPA
will achieve control of the migration of contaminated groundwater through engineered remedies
or natural processes at a net total of 15 additional sites, bringing the program's cumulative total
to 1,007 sites under control.
The Agency will continue to take actions to improve program management and increase
efficiency. In FY 2009, the Agency, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
consulting engineers, plans to advise Regional offices on how to best stage significant design and
construction projects. The effort will augment the Agency's technical outreach to the Regions
by expanding access to technical resources made available to EPA Regional project managers to
help promote the efficiency of project delivery and facilitate project progress through the
Superfund pipeline. In addition, the Agency will continue focusing on optimizing groundwater
remedies and sharing best practices with Regional offices for cost management and efficiency
improvements.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of Superfund
sites ready for
anticipated use site-
wide.
FY 2007
Actual
64
FY 2007
Target
30
FY 2008
Target
30
FY 2009
Target
30
Units
Sites
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of Superfund
sites with human
exposures under
control.
FY 2007
Actual
13
FY 2007
Target
10
FY 2008
Target
10
FY 2009
Target
10
Units
Sites
607
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Superfund final site
assessment decisions
completed.
FY 2007
Actual
395
FY 2007
Target
350
FY 2008
Target
400
FY 2009
Target
400
Units
Assessments
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Annual number of
Superfund sites with
remedy construction
completed.
FY 2007
Actual
24
FY 2007
Target
24
FY 2008
Target
30
FY 2009
Target
35
Units
Completions
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Superfund sites with
contaminated
groundwater migration
under control.
FY 2007
Actual
19
FY 2007
Target
10
FY 2008
Target
15
FY 2009
Target
15
Units
Sites
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Human exposures
under control per
million dollars.
FY 2007
Actual
6.90
FY 2007
Target
6.1
FY 2008
Target
6.4
FY 2009
Target
6.7
Units
Sites
The Superfund Remedial program reports its activities and progress towards long-term human
health and environmental protection via several measures that encompass the entire cleanup
process. In FY 2007 The Superfund Remedial program met or exceeded all of its performance
measure targets. In 2009, all targets will remain or exceed the FY 2008 levels. For FY 2009,
EPA has set an aggressive target of 35 construction completions to maintain progress toward
achieving the long-term goal identified in EPA's FY 2006-2011 Strategic Plan.
In FY 2007, the program introduced a new efficiency measure that tracked the number of NPL
sites with human exposures under control per million dollars. EPA is currently working to
modernize the program's data repository (i.e., the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System, or CERCLIS) to ensure accurate and complete
information on program performance and financial management.
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
NPL Federal facility sites.
608
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$5,049.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$6,090.0) This reduction does not maintain a net increase in funding directed by
Congress in the FY 2008 Omnibus for the Superfund Remedial program after application
of the 1.56% rescission.
• (-$3,917.0) Various Headquarters program functions will be reduced to maintain high
levels of funding for site-specific response activities conducted in the Regions. This
reduction will not impede site cleanup progress.
• (-2.0 FTE) This change reflects EPA's workforce management strategy that will help the
Agency better align resources, skills and Agency priorities.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA of 1980, Section 104, as amended by SARA of 1986, as reauthorized as part of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.
609
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$4,967.0
$4,967.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,472.0
$6,472.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$103.0
$103.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Other Federal agencies contribute to the Superfund program by providing services in areas where
EPA does not possess the necessary specialized expertise. These agencies provide numerous
Superfund-related services which Superfund resources support. Contributors include the
Department of Interior (DOT), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
and the United States Coast Guard (USCG).
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Agency will continue to provide resources through interagency agreements to
support other select Federal agencies. The following table illustrates the levels of funding
proposed to be provided to each Federal agency in EPA's FY 2009 request:
Other Federal Agency Funding
($ in thousands)
Agency
DOT
NOAA
USCG
TOTAL
FY 2009 Pres Bud
$546.0
$1,063.0
$4,966.0
$6,575.0
Under the EPA/DOI interagency agreement, DOT 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. In addition, DOT will assist
EPA in the development and implementation of comprehensive and environmentally protective
610
-------
remedies affecting DOI-owned sites as well as the coordination of natural resource trustee
agency27 support.
Under the EPA/NOAA interagency agreement, EPA Regional offices are provided direct access
to NOAA's multidisciplinary technical support experts in the fields of coastal remediation,
scientific resource coordination and response management. NOAA, which is also a natural
resource trustee agency, 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 resources from hazardous waste sites, and evaluate strategies/methods of
minimizing those risks. NOAA's experts have produced high quality evaluations of risk to the
environment and natural resources from releases at Superfund sites, development and
implementation of comprehensive and environmentally protective remedies, and coordination of
trustee support. At the proposed level of funding, NOAA is expected to assist EPA at
approximately 70-100 sites. 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.
EPA and the USCG share lead responsibilities under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for response actions. 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, pollutants, or contaminants which may present an imminent and substantial danger to
the public health or welfare or the environment. In FY 2009, other Federal agency funding will
support USCG district offices, marine safety field units, USCG Strike Teams and National
Response Center activities. It also provides for the planning, coordination and response
infrastructure to ensure the USCG is fully prepared to respond to CERCLA incidents.
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 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$103.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA Sections 104, 105, 106, 120; CWA; OPA.
27 Natural Resource Trustees are outlined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act and have different, but complementary, roles and responsibilities. For more information, please refer
to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrd/fields.pdf
611
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Resource Summary Table 612
Program Projects in LUST 612
Program Area: Compliance 614
Compliance Assistance and Centers 615
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 617
IT / Data Management 618
Program Area: Operations and Administration 621
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 622
Acquisition Management 624
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance 626
Human Resources Management 628
Program Area: Research: Land Protection 629
Research: Land Protection and Restoration 630
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST) 632
LUST/UST 633
LUST Cooperative Agreements 636
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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 2007
Actuals
$83,673.9
67.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$72,461.0
75.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$105,816.0
75.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$72,284.0
75.3
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($33,532.0)
0.0
Program Projects in LUST
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
Rent
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations (other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure
and Operations
Acquisition Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and
Finance
Human Resources Management
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and
Restoration
FY 2007
Actuals
$644.1
$136.5
$717.1
$131.4
$848.5
$223.1
$812.6
$3.0
$1,887.2
$657.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$688.0
$177.0
$696.0
$205.0
$901.0
$165.0
$1,102.0
$3.0
$2,171.0
$660.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$709.0
$174.0
$685.0
$202.0
$887.0
$162.0
$1,085.0
$3.0
$2,137.0
$650.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$753.0
$162.0
$696.0
$206.0
$902.0
$165.0
$1,131.0
$3.0
$2,201.0
$413.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$44.0
($12.0)
$11.0
$4.0
$15.0
$3.0
$46.0
$0.0
$64.0
($237.0)
612
-------
Program Project
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST /
UST)
LUST / UST
EPAct & Related
Authorities Implemention
LUST /UST (other
activities)
Subtotal, LUST /UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
EPAct & Related
Authorities Implemention
LUST Cooperative
Agreements (other
activities)
Subtotal, LUST Cooperative
Agreements
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks
(LUST /UST)
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2007
Actuals
$0.0
$14,996.1
$14,996.1
$0.0
$65,353.0
$65,353.0
$80,349.1
$83,673.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$0.0
$10,558.0
$10,558.0
$0.0
$58,207.0
$58,207.0
$68,765.0
$72,461.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,575.0
$10,393.0
$11,968.0
$28,941.0
$61,237.0
$90,178.0
$102,146.0
$105,816.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$0.0
$10,548.0
$10,548.0
$0.0
$58,207.0
$58,207.0
$68,755.0
$72,284.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,575.0)
$155.0
($1,420.0)
($28,941.0)
($3,030.0)
($31,971.0)
($33,391.0)
($33,532.0)
613
-------
Program Area: Compliance
614
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$28,226.9
$644.1
$267.9
$11.1
$29,150.0
205.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,547.0
$688.0
$291.0
$22.0
$30,548.0
208.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$27,725.0
$709.0
$286.0
$22.0
$28,742.0
208.4
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$26,435.0
$753.0
$303.0
$22.0
$27,513.0
198.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,290.0)
$44.0
$17.0
$0.0
($1,229.0)
-10.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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 2009, 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 also will 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, 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
1 For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/swerustl/cat/index.htm.
615
-------
result of this review, EPA is considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic architecture.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the goal to preserve land. Currently, there are no performance
measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$53.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$9.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects in
addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
PPA; CERFA; NEPA; AEA; UMTRLWA.
616
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
617
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$99,196.3
$4,522.1
$136.5
$23.8
$15,975.5
$119,854.2
497.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$91,019.0
$3,499.0
$177.0
$34.0
$16,338.0
$111,067.0
488.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$90,753.0
$3,453.0
$174.0
$33.0
$16,083.0
$110,496.0
488.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$94,360.0
$3,859.0
$162.0
$24.0
$16,872.0
$115,277.0
488.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,607.0
$406.0
($12.0)
($9.0)
$789.0
$4,781.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Agency offices rely on the IT/Data Management Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)
program and its capabilities to develop and implement tools for ready access to accurate and
timely data. This program houses all of the critical IT infrastructure that allows rapid efficient
communication exchange and storage of data, analysis and computations. It also allows public
access to the scientific, regulatory, and best practice infrastructure needed by Agency staff, the
regulated community, and the public. These functions are integral to the implementation of
Agency information technology programs and systems like the Exchange Network, the Central
Data Exchange (CDX), and the Permit Compliance System (PCS). Recent partnerships include
portals projects with the Research and Development and Air and Radiation offices to access
scientific and program data. Because the IT/Data Management function supports the entire
Agency, funds are provided in each operating appropriation including LUST.
This program manages and coordinates the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and develops
analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound environmental decision-making.
The program implements the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov) responsibilities and 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
618
-------
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.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA's Information Technology community will continue to focus on improving the
Agency's use of technology, pursuing enterprise solutions, and protecting privacy and security of
data holdings while improving delivery of information and services to partners and citizens. 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,
developing Environmental Indicators, and continuing to deploy enterprise-wide IT infrastructure
solutions.
The Environmental Information programs technology efforts have three major components:
• OEI's efforts in the areas of Analytical Capacity and Indicators are expected to help
identify data gaps, and suggest areas where additional capacity is needed;
• Through use of the portal and Exchange Network, the Technology Initiative program will
increase the integration of quality data, streamline transactions to foster collaboration,
reduce the data entry burden, and improve decision making;
• OEI's Readiness to Serve initiative will build the capacity and infrastructure needed to
allow more EPA employees to telecommute or work safely and securely in the field.
In FY 2009 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 its 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 specific to this program project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$12.0) This change reflects a redirection of costs from general expenses, grants and
contracts originating in the LUST funded portion of this program, as well as the
restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
619
-------
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.
620
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
621
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$327,954.1
$32,886.2
$28,672.1
$848.5
$500.4
$70,265.0
$461,126.3
399.2
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
Enacted
$297,189.0
$72,707.0
$26,511.0
$887.0
$488.0
$73,787.0
$471,569.0
415.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$311,068.0
$74,884.0
$26,931.0
$902.0
$496.0
$76,270.0
$490,551.0
410.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$13,879.0
$2,177.0
$420.0
$15.0
$8.0
$2,483.0
$18,982.0
-5.3
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 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.
Because this program supports the entire Agency, funds are included in most appropriations.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
• For FY 2009, the Agency is requesting a total of $696 thousand for rent and $55 thousand for
transit subsidy in the LUST appropriation.
• The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with General Services
Administration and other private landlords by conducting rent reviews and verifying that
monthly billing statements are correct.
622
-------
• EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order 13 ISO2
Federal Workforce Transportation.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2.0) Provides additional resources for increases in transit subsidy cost.
• (+$13.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
to fund increases in transit subsidy and rent.
Statutory Authority:
Federal Property and Administration Services Act; Public Building Act; 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).
2 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
623
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$23,654.1
$223.1
$19,129.3
$43,006.5
340.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,992.0
$165.0
$24,645.0
$54,802.0
357.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$28,629.0
$162.0
$24,327.0
$53,118.0
357.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$31,195.0
$165.0
$24,985.0
$56,345.0
362.9
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,566.0
$3.0
$658.0
$3,227.0
5.6
Program Project Description:
LUST resources in this program support contract and acquisition management activities at
Headquarters, Regional Offices, Research Triangle Park and Cincinnati facilities. 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Agency will continue to refine electronic government capabilities and enhance
the education of its contract workforce. In addition, LUST resources will also 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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
624
-------
Statutory Authority:
EPA's Environmental Statutes; Annual Appropriations Acts; FAR; contract law.
625
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$64,431.2
$812.6
$20,428.7
$85,672.5
519.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$74,960.0
$1,102.0
$24,306.0
$100,368.0
530.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$73,949.0
$1,085.0
$24,008.0
$99,042.0
530.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$80,623.0
$1,131.0
$26,102.0
$107,856.0
538.1
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$6,674.0
$46.0
$2,094.0
$8,814.0
8.1
Program Project Description:
Activities under the Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance program 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The Agency works to ensure sound financial and budgetary management through the use of
routine and ad hoc analysis, statistical sampling and other evaluation tools. In addition, more
structured and more targeted use of performance measurements has led to better understanding
of program impacts as well as leverage points to increase effectiveness.
EPA will continue efforts to modernize the Agency's financial systems and business processes.
The Agency is working to 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 allow the Agency to improve efficiency and automate quality control
functions to simplify use of the system as well as 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.
626
-------
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. Currently, there are no
performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$147.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$101.0) This change reflects the 1.56% rescission to all program projects combined
with small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support costs
across 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.
627
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$39,740.2
$3.0
$5,203.0
$44,946.2
298.6
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$40,175.0
$3.0
$5,036.0
$45,214.0
296.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$39,760.0
$3.0
$4,969.0
$44,732.0
296.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$43,646.0
$3.0
$5,063.0
$48,712.0
304.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,886.0
$0.0
$94.0
$3,980.0
8.3
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 Agency-wide and interagency councils and
committees and through participation in interagency management improvement initiatives. The
Agency continually evaluates human resource and workforce functions, employee development,
leadership development, workforce planning, and succession management.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to meet the Department of Labor requirements for distributing
workmen's compensation and disability.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
Title V USC.
628
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
629
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$10,907.3
$657.0
$841.3
$23,859.1
$36,264.7
134.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,737.0
$660.0
$901.0
$20,081.0
$32,379.0
141.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,591.0
$650.0
$887.0
$19,768.0
$31,896.0
141.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$13,350.0
$413.0
$704.0
$21,021.0
$35,488.0
154.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,759.0
($237.0)
($183.0)
$1,253.0
$3,592.0
13.4
Program Project Description:
Leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) research 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.
These research efforts are guided by the Land Multi-Year Plan (MYP)3, 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 externally 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. 4
FY 2009 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. Remedies being
3 EPA, Office of Research and Development, Land Research MYP. Washington, D.C.: EPA. For more information,
see http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp.htnrfland
4 BOSC Land Restoration and Preservation Research Subcommittee Report. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/OSP/bosc/pdf/land0603rpt.pdf
630
-------
investigated include active water treatment and monitored natural attenuation, with performance
influenced by the nature of the fuel oxygenate.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the program as "adequate" in its 2006
(PART) review, which was conducted under the program title "Land Protection and Restoration
Research."5 This "adequate" rating was supported by findings that the program had long-term
and annual output performance measures in place that reflected the purpose of the program, as
well as a strong strategic and evaluation approach. In response to OMB recommendations
following the 2006 PART, the program has established a process by which the BOSC will assign
a performance rating to each program long-term goal as part of its reviews. These ratings will
provide the data for new program long-term outcome measures that will be instated. Using the
progress rating expected from the 2008 BOSC review, the program will be able to set appropriate
future year targets. Additionally, to address OMB's recommendation that the program establish
an outcome-oriented efficiency measure, EPA's Research and Development program has
initiated a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study to determine the most appropriate
approach. Further, to improve its collection of partner performance information, EPA's Research
and Development program is updating its Policy and Procedures Manual on Extramural
Resources Management to require that all research and development grants, contracts, and
cooperative agreements be linked to one or more Multi-Year Plan Long-Term Goals (LTGs).
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Strategic Plan Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and
Research. Specifically, the program provides and applies sound science for protecting and
restoring land by conducting leading-edge research, which, through collaboration, leads to
preferred environmental outcomes. Performance measures for this specific program project are
included under the Superfund Land Protection and Restoration program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$81.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$280.0) This reduction discontinues a fuel composition study for use in assessing
potential contamination problems from leaking underground storage tanks, and studies on
the effectiveness of ex-situ biotreatment.
• (-$38.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
BRERA; CERCLA; ERDDA; HSWA; OP A; RCRA; SARA; SWDA.
' For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10004305.2006.html
631
-------
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
632
-------
LUST / UST
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Environmental Program &
Management
Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$9,836.7
$14,996.1
$24,832.8
112.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$11,719.0
$10,558.0
$22,277.0
131.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$11,572.0
$11,968.0
$23,540.0
131.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$12,256.0
$10,548.0
$22,804.0
132.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$684.0
($1,420.0)
($736.0)
0.7
Program Project Description:
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program promotes rapid and effective
responses to releases from Federally-regulated underground storage tanks (USTs) containing
petroleum and hazardous substances by enhancing state, local, and Tribal enforcement and
response capability. EPA provides oversight and financial assistance for states, tribes and non-
profit organizations. These efforts include providing technical information, forums for
information exchange, and training opportunities to encourage program development and/or
implementation. These activities support the LUST cooperative agreements, awarded by EPA to
states to assist them in implementing their oversight and programmatic role.6
EPA works with state and Tribal UST programs to clean up LUST sites, promote innovative
approaches in corrective action in order to streamline the remediation process, and measure and
evaluate national program progress and performance. In addition, the Energy Policy Act7
(EPAct) of 2005 authorized LUST Trust Fund resources to develop and implement a strategy to
implement and enforce EPAct requirements concerning USTs in Indian Country.
EPA has primary responsibility for implementing the LUST program in Indian Country, and will
use a portion of its LUST funding to implement the program in Indian Country, including
providing tribes with financial assistance for cleanup activities.
6 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/20clenup.htm.
Refer to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&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).
633
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to work with the states and tribes to complete LUST cleanups in
an effort to reduce the backlog of 108,766 cleanups8 not yet completed. Since the beginning of
the LUST program, EPA and state programs have cleaned up approximately 77 percent (or
365,361) of all reported releases. In FY 2007, EPA and state tank programs completed 13,862
cleanups in states and territories, of which 54 cleanups were completed in Indian country.9 For
FY 2009, the program's goal for LUST cleanups is 13,000, with a subset of 30 LUST cleanups in
Indian country.
EPA's LUST cleanup 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 2009, EPA will continue to help states
and tribes improve LUST cleanup performance through an active, collaborative initiative with
states and tribes to identify the underlying causes for the slowing pace of cleanups. EPA will
work with states in better characterizing sites still requiring remediation and develop both
national and state-specific strategies to overcome obstacles and accelerate cleanups. 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 EPAct requirement to develop a strategy10 for implementing the program in Indian Country
enhanced EPA's efforts and provided renewed focus to reduce the cleanup backlog and to
prevent future releases 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. 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 (cleanup) program received an overall PART rating of "adequate" in 2004. As a
component of the program's improvement plan, EPA created two long-term performance
measures that focus on environmental outcomes to increase the number of cleanups that meet
state risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration, and to increase the
number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater
migration in Indian country.
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum, FY 2007 End-of-Year Activity Report, from Cliff Rothenstein, Director,
Office of Underground Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10, dated December 5, 2007,
http: //www.epa. go v/OUST/cat/ca_07_34 .pdf
9 http: //www.epa. go v/OUST/cat/ca_07_34 .pd
10 Refer to Strategy for an EPA/Tribal Partne
EPA-510-F-06-005, http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/epact_05.htm#Final.
634
9 http: //www.epa. go v/OUST/cat/ca_07_34 .pdf
10 Refer to Strategy for an EPA/Tribal Partnership to Implement Section 1529 of the Energy Policy Act of 20005, August 2006,
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of cleanups
that meet risk -based
standards for human
exposure and
groundwater migration
in Indian Country.
FY 2007
Actual
30
FY 2007
Target
54
FY 2008
Target
30
FY 2009
Target
30
Units
cleanups
Work under this program supports EPA's objectives under Goal 3. The program tracks the
annual number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards for human exposure and
groundwater migration and the annual number of cleanups that meet risk-based standards for
human exposure and groundwater migration in Indian Country.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$641.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$1,600.0) This reflects funding shifted from the STAG account to the LUST account and a
reduction in the additional Congressional FY 2008 Omnibus funds. This shift between the
LUST appropriation and the STAG appropriation will not impact program activities.
• (-$461.0) This change reflects the net effects of restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all
program projects combined with changes in IT, travel or other support costs across programs.
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, Title
XV - Ethanol And Motor Fuels, Subtitle B - Underground Storage Tank Compliance, Sections
1521 - 1533, P.L. 109-58, 42 U.S.C. 15801.
635
-------
LUST Cooperative Agreements
Program Area: Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
Goal: Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective(s): Preserve Land; Restore Land
(Dollars in Thousands)
Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$65,353.0
$65,353.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$58,207.0
$58,207.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$90,178.0
$90,178.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$58,207.0
$58,207.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($31,971.0)
($31,971.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA provides resources to states and territories through cooperative agreements authorized
under Section 9003 (h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) for the oversight and cleanup of
petroleum releases from Underground Storage Tanks (USTs). The Agency will continue to fund
research, studies and training that directly support state oversight and Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup.
There are more than 108 thousand sites with confirmed releases from leaking USTs nationwide
that still need to be cleaned up and approximately 630 thousand active underground storage tanks
at approximately 238 thousand sites which are regulated by the UST technical regulations under
Subtitle I of RCRA. Because of the size and diversity of the regulated community, state
authorities are in the best position to regulate USTs and set priorities. For additional
information, refer to the following site: http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/overview.htm.
States are the primary implementing agencies, except in Indian country. States use the cleanup
funds provided under this program to administer their corrective action programs, oversee
cleanups by responsible parties, undertake necessary enforcement actions, pay for cleanups in
cases where a responsible party cannot be found or is unwilling or unable to pay for a cleanup,
and recover costs from responsible parties who are unwilling to pay for cleanups.11
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. 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.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA's LUST cleanup program will focus on increasing the efficiency of LUST
cleanups nationwide. EPA will continue to work with the states to complete cleanups and reduce
Refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST/ltffacts.htm
636
-------
the backlog of 108,766 cleanups12 not yet completed. Since the beginning of the UST program,
approximately 77 percent (or 365,361) of all reported releases have been cleaned up. At the FY
2009 request level, the Agency will provide not less than 80 percent of LUST appropriated funds
to states to carry out specific purposes.13 EPA will distribute the LUST funding to states under a
previously established allocation process for the cleanup activities.
The LUST (cleanup) program received an overall rating of "adequate" in 2004. As a component
of the program's improvement plan, EPA created two long-term performance measures that
focus on environmental outcomes to increase the number of cleanups that meet state risk-based
standards for human exposure and groundwater migration, and to increase the number of
cleanups that meet risk-based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration in
Indian country.
Performance Targets:
The program tracks the annual number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards for
human exposure and groundwater migration and the annual number of cleanups that meet risk-
based standards for human exposure and groundwater migration in Indian Country.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,429.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects. The restored funds will provide additional support for eligible grantees to
implement the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program.
• (-$33,400.0) This reflects funding shifted from the STAG account to the LUST account
and a reduction in the additional Congressional FY 2008 Omnibus funds. This shift
between the LUST appropriation and the STAG appropriation will not impact program
activities.
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 2007 End-of-Year Activity Report, from Cliff
Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks to UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-
10, dated December 5, 2007, http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca_07_34.pdf.
13 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).
637
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Oil Spill
Resource Summary Table 638
Program Projects in Oil Spills 638
Program Area: Compliance 640
Compliance Assistance and Centers 641
Program Area: Enforcement 643
Civil Enforcement 644
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security 646
IT / Data Management 647
Program Area: Oil 650
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response 651
Program Area: Operations and Administration 654
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations 655
Program Area: Research: Land Protection 657
Research: Land Protection and Restoration 658
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
APPROPRIATION: Oil Spill Response
Resource Summary Table
(Dollars in Thousands)
Oil Spill Response
Budget Authority
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$16,185.2
90.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$17,280.0
102.2
FY 2008
Enacted
$17,056.0
102.2
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$17,687.0
102.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$631.0
0.0
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
Rent
Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations (other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure
and Operations
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and
FY 2007
Actuals
$267.9
$1,661.5
$23.8
$12,890.3
$447.0
$53.4
$500.4
$500.4
$841.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$291.0
$2,065.0
$34.0
$13,499.0
$438.0
$52.0
$490.0
$490.0
$901.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$286.0
$2,072.0
$33.0
$13,290.0
$431.0
$57.0
$488.0
$488.0
$887.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$303.0
$2,233.0
$24.0
$13,927.0
$438.0
$58.0
$496.0
$496.0
$704.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$17.0
$161.0
($9.0)
$637.0
$7.0
$1.0
$8.0
$8.0
($183.0)
638
-------
Program Project
Restoration
Subtotal, Research: Land
Protection and Restoration
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2007
Actuals
$841.3
$16,185.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$901.0
$17,280.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$887.0
$17,056.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$704.0
$17,687.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($183.0)
$631.0
639
-------
Program Area: Compliance
640
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$28,226.9
$644.1
$267.9
$11.1
$29,150.0
205.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$29,547.0
$688.0
$291.0
$22.0
$30,548.0
208.4
FY 2008
Enacted
$27,725.0
$709.0
$286.0
$22.0
$28,742.0
208.4
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$26,435.0
$753.0
$303.0
$22.0
$27,513.0
198.4
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($1,290.0)
$44.0
$17.0
$0.0
($1,229.0)
-10.0
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 2009 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 2009 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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic architecture.
641
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's objective to achieve environmental protection through
compliance. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific program project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$11.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (+$6.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
Statutory Authority:
OP A; CWA; CERCLA; PPA; NEPA; PHSA; DREAA; SOW A; Executive Order 12241;
Executive Order 12656.
642
-------
Program Area: Enforcement
643
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$123,003.7
$1,661.5
$739.2
$125,404.4
914.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$126,645.0
$2,065.0
$884.0
$129,594.0
969.1
FY 2008
Enacted
$129,886.0
$2,072.0
$870.0
$132,828.0
969.1
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$133,017.0
$2,233.0
$0.0
$135,250.0
958.2
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,131.0
$161.0
($870.0)
$2,422.0
-10.9
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 2009 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 2009, the program also will 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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic architecture.
For more information refer to: www.epa.gov/oilspill/index.htm.
644
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's objective to achieve environmental protection through
compliance. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$180.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$19.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs
Statutory Authority:
OP A; CWA; CERCLA; NEPA; Pollution Prosecution Act.
645
-------
Program Area: IT / Data Management / Security
646
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$99,196.3
$4,522.1
$136.5
$23. 8
$15,975.5
$119,854.2
497.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$91,019.0
$3,499.0
$177.0
$34.0
$16,338.0
$111,067.0
488.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$90,753.0
$3,453.0
$174.0
$33.0
$16,083.0
$110,496.0
488.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$94,360.0
$3,859.0
$162.0
$24.0
$16,872.0
$115,277.0
488.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,607.0
$406.0
($12.0)
($9.0)
$789.0
$4,781.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
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. This program houses all of the
critical IT infrastructure that allows rapid efficient communication exchange and storage of data,
analysis and computations. It also allows access to the scientific, regulatory, and best practice
infrastructure needed by agency staff, the regulated community, and the public. These functions
are integral to the implementation of Agency information technology programs and systems like
the Exchange Network, the Central Data Exchange (CDX), and the Permit Compliance System
(PCS). Recent partnerships include portals projects with the Research and Development and Air
and Radiation offices to access scientific and program data. Because the IT/Data Management
function supports the entire Agency, funds are provided in each operating appropriation
including Oil.
This program manages and coordinates the Agency's Enterprise Architecture and develops
analytical tools (e.g., Environmental Indicators) to ensure sound environmental decision-making.
The program implements the Agency's e-Government (e-Gov) responsibilities and 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
647
-------
guidelines; and (4) supports Regional information technology infrastructure, administrative and
environmental programs, and telecommunications.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA's Information Technology community will continue to focus on improving the
Agency's use of technology, pursuing enterprise solutions, and protecting privacy and security of
data holdings while improving delivery of information and services to partners and citizens. 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.
The Environmental Information program's FY 2009 technology efforts have three major
components:
• OEI's efforts in the areas of Analytical Capacity and Indicators are expected to help
identify data gaps, and suggest areas where additional capacity is needed;
• Through use of the portal and Exchange Network, the Technology Initiative program will
increase the integration of quality data, streamline transactions to foster collaboration,
reduce the data entry burden, and improve decision making;
• OEI's Readiness to Serve initiative will build the capacity and infrastructure needed to
allow more EPA employees to telecommute or work safely and securely in the field.
In FY 2009 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 its 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 specific to this program project.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$9.0) This change reflects a redirection of costs from general expenses, contracts and
grants originating in the Oil Spill portion of this program project, as well as the
restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
648
-------
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.
649
-------
Program Area: Oil
650
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$12,890.3
$12,890.3
84.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$13,499.0
$13,499.0
84.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$13,290.0
$13,290.0
84.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$13,927.0
$13,927.0
84.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$637.0
$637.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Oil Spill program protects U.S. waters by effectively preventing, preparing for, responding
to and 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 Spill 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. More than 24 thousand oil spills occur in the U.S. every year,
with half of these spills occurring in the inland zone for which EPA has jurisdiction. On
average, one spill of greater than 100 thousand 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
FY 2009 priorities include improvements to the Oil Spill program's regulatory requirements. In
FY 2009, EPA intends to implement regulatory changes 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. EPA also expects to revise and update guidance that was issued to ensure it reflects
current final rule requirements and input from stakeholders.
The largest oil storage facilities and refineries
and ensure their availability in the event
communication, address security, identify an
actions, and describe training and testing drills
review/approve FRPs and conduct inspections
EPA will emphasize emergency preparedness,
must prepare FRPs to identify response resources
of a worst case discharge. FRPs establish
individual with authority to implement removal
at the facility. In FY 2009, EPA will continue to
and exercises at an estimated 250 FRP facilities.
particularly through the use of unannounced drills
651
-------
and exercises, to ensure facilities and responders can effectively implement response plans. EPA
also will finalize and begin using guidance for FRP inspectors.
Working with 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 efficiency measure reflects long-term
performance with targets set every three years. 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 regions. In FY 2009, the
Agency expects to initially test and set baselines for at least two new outcome performance
measures to be developed during FY 2008.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Gallons of oil spilled to
navigable waters per
million program dollar
spent annually on
prevention and
preparedness at Facilty
Response Plan (FRP)
facilities.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
no target
FY 2008
Target
90,000
FY 2009
Target
no target
Units
gallons
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
inspected facilities
subject to Spill
Prevention, Control
and Countermeasures
(SPCC) regulations
found to be in
compliance.
FY 2007
Actual
40%
FY 2007
Target
53
FY 2008
Target
55
FY 2009
Target
58
Units
percent
652
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
inspected facilities
subject to Facility
Response Plan (FRP)
regulations found to be
in compliance.
FY 2007
Actual
67%
FY 2007
Target
75
FY 2008
Target
78
FY 2009
Target
82
Units
percent
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$905.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$268.0) This change reflects the net effect of the restoration of the 1.56% rescission
across all program projects combined with technical changes such as realignment of IT,
travel or other support costs across programs.
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.
653
-------
Program Area: Operations and Administration
654
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$327,954.1
$32,886.2
$28,672.1
$848.5
$500.4
$70,265.0
$461,126.3
399.2
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
Enacted
$297,189.0
$72,707.0
$26,511.0
$887.0
$488.0
$73,787.0
$471,569.0
415.9
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$311,068.0
$74,884.0
$26,931.0
$902.0
$496.0
$76,270.0
$490,551.0
410.6
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$13,879.0
$2,177.0
$420.0
$15.0
$8.0
$2,483.0
$18,982.0
-5.3
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. Because this program supports the entire Agency, funds are included in
most appropriations.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
• For FY 2009, the Agency is requesting a total of $438 thousand for rent and $58
thousand for transit subsidy in the Oil Spill appropriation.
• The Agency will continue to manage its lease agreements with the General Services
Administration and other private landlords by conducting rent reviews and verifying that
monthly billing statements are correct.
655
-------
• EPA will provide transit subsidy to eligible applicants as directed by Executive Order
13ISO2 Federal Workforce Transportation.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives. Performance information is
included in the Program Performance and Assessment section.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$8.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects,
and will fund projected increases in transit subsidy costs as well as rent.
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).
2 Additional information available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eol3150.html
656
-------
Program Area: Research: Land Protection
657
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$10,907.3
$657.0
$841.3
$23,859.1
$36,264.7
134.1
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,737.0
$660.0
$901.0
$20,081.0
$32,379.0
141.3
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,591.0
$650.0
$887.0
$19,768.0
$31,896.0
141.3
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$13,350.0
$413.0
$704.0
$21,021.0
$35,488.0
154.7
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,759.0
($237.0)
($183.0)
$1,253.0
$3,592.0
13.4
Program Project Description:
Land protection research in the oil spills area focuses on three aspects: test protocol
development, fate and transport modeling, and remediation. EPA develops and uses these
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 by the Land Multi-Year Plan (MYP)3, 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. Testing products ensures
that they work as claimed and provides access to effective means to reduce damage when an oil
spill occurs. 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 externally 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. 4
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
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.
! EPA, Office of Research and Development, Land Research MYP. Washington, DC: EPA. For more information,
see
4
BOSC Land Restoration and Preservation Research Subcommittee Report. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/OSP/bosc/pdf/land0603rpt.pdf
658
-------
Research products are presented at meetings and posted or linked on EPA's oil spills web site for
use by oil spill managers.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the program as "adequate" in its 2006
(PART) review, which was conducted under the program title "Land Protection and Restoration
Research."5 This "adequate" rating was supported by findings that the program had long-term
and annual output performance measures in place that reflected the purpose of the program, as
well as a strong strategic and evaluation approach. In response to OMB recommendations
following the 2006 PART, the program has established a process by which the BOSC will assign
a performance rating to each program long-term goal as part of its reviews. These ratings will
provide the data for new program long-term outcome measures that will be instated. Using the
progress rating expected from the 2008 BOSC review, the program will be able to set appropriate
future year targets. Additionally, to address OMB's recommendation that the program establish
an outcome-oriented efficiency measure, EPA's Research and Development program has
initiated a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study to determine the most appropriate
approach. Further, to improve its collection of partner performance information, the Research
and Development program is updating its Policy and Procedures Manual on Extramural
Resources Management to require that all research and development grants, contracts, and
cooperative agreements be linked to one or more Multi-Year Plan Long-Term Goals (LTGs).
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Strategic Plan Objective 3.3: Enhance Science and
Research. Specifically, the program provides and applies sound science for protecting and
restoring land by conducting leading-edge research, which, through collaboration, leads to
preferred environmental outcomes. Performance measures for this specific program project are
included under the Superfund Land Protection and Restoration program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$15.0) This reflects an increase for payroll and cost of living for existing FTE.
• (-$200.0) This reduction discontinues an oil spill dispersant study and further work on the
ERO3s model for predicting migration of contaminants from oil spills. This reduction
will eliminate the planned model development to link ERO3s to existing EPA water
quality and hydrodynamic models.
• (+$2.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects in
addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
SWDA; HSWA; SARA; CERCLA; RCRA; OP A; BRERA.
' For more information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html
659
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Resource Summary Table 660
Program Projects in STAG 660
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) 677
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF 678
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF 681
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages 684
Brownfields Projects 686
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program 689
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border 691
Program Area: Categorical Grants 694
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection 695
Categorical Grant: Brownfields 697
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information 699
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance 701
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security 703
Categorical Grant: Lead 705
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) 707
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement 710
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation 712
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106) 715
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention 720
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) 722
Categorical Grant: Radon 725
Categorical Grant: Sector Program 727
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality Management 729
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance 733
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management 735
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program 737
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control (UIC) 740
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks 743
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development 746
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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 2007
Actuals
$3,337,543.9
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,744,450.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,937,051.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$2,621,952.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($315,099.0)
0.0
Program Projects in STAG
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG)
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean
Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking
Water SRF
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska
Native Villages
Brownfields Projects
Clean School Bus Initiative
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant
Program
EPAct & Related
Authorities Implemention
CA Emission Reduction
Project Grants
Subtotal, Diesel Emissions
Reduction Grant Program
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico
Border
Subtotal, State and Tribal Assistance
Grants (STAG)
Categorical Grants
Categorical Grant: Beaches
FY 2007
Actuals
$1,039,998.4
$800,695.0
$150,200.2
$34,907.5
$85,865.8
$4,523.6
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$96,452.7
$2,212,643.2
$10,573.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$687,554.0
$842,167.0
$0.0
$15,500.0
$89,258.0
$0.0
$35,000.0
$0.0
$35,000.0
$10,000.0
$1,679,479.0
$9,900.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$689,080.0
$829,029.0
$143,723.0
$24,610.0
$93,518.0
$0.0
$49,220.0
$9,844.0
$59,064.0
$19,688.0
$1,858,712.0
$9,746.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$555,000.0
$842,167.0
$0.0
$15,500.0
$93,558.0
$0.0
$49,220.0
$0.0
$49,220.0
$10,000.0
$1,565,445.0
$9,900.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($134,080.0)
$13,138.0
($143,723.0)
($9,110.0)
$40.0
$0.0
$0.0
($9,844.0)
($9,844.0)
($9,688.0)
($293,267.0)
$154.0
660
-------
Program Project
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)
Monitoring Grants
Categorical Grant:
Pollution Control (Sec.
106) (other activities)
Subtotal, Categorical Grant:
Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Categorical Grant: Pollution
Prevention
Categorical Grant: Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Categorical Grant: State and Local
Air Quality Management
Categorical Grant: Targeted
Watersheds
Categorical Grant: Toxics
Substances Compliance
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air
Quality Management
Categorical Grant: Tribal General
Assistance Program
Categorical Grant: Underground
Injection Control (UIC)
Categorical Grant: Underground
Storage Tanks
Categorical Grant: Wastewater
Operator Training
Categorical Grant: Water Quality
Cooperative Agreements
FY 2007
Actuals
$50,556.9
$15,830.8
$104,650.9
$3,730.2
$22,935.5
$209,889.6
$19,063.6
$13,319.3
$13,246.5
$197,964.3
$211,210.8
$6,121.9
$97,461.9
$7,915.0
$1,360.9
$208,567.3
$4,582.0
$5,710.3
$11,840.5
$61,569.8
$10,150.8
$29,459.4
$828.1
$1,258.1
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
$0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$48,723.0
$9,844.0
$101,734.0
$4,873.0
$13,352.0
$200,857.0
$18,419.0
$12,768.0
$18,211.0
$199,995.0
$218,206.0
$4,863.0
$97,554.0
$7,948.0
$1,209.0
$216,825.0
$9,844.0
$5,019.0
$10,769.0
$56,037.0
$10,721.0
$2,461.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$49,495.0
$11,000.0
$103,346.0
$4,950.0
$13,564.0
$184,540.0
$18,711.0
$12,970.0
$18,500.0
$203,164.0
$221,664.0
$4,940.0
$99,100.0
$8,074.0
$1,828.0
$185,580.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$13,300.0
$57,925.0
$10,891.0
$22,800.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$772.0
$1,156.0
$1,612.0
$77.0
$212.0
($16,317.0)
$292.0
$202.0
$289.0
$3,169.0
$3,458.0
$77.0
$1,546.0
$126.0
$619.0
($31,245.0)
($9,844.0)
$80.0
$2,531.0
$1,888.0
$170.0
$20,339.0
$0.0
$0.0
661
-------
Program Project
Categorical Grant: Wetlands
Program Development
Subtotal, Categorical Grant:
Wetlands Program
Development
Subtotal, Categorical Grants
TOTAL, EPA
FY 2007
Actuals
$16,313.7
$16,313.7
$1,124,900.7
$3,337,543.9
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
$1,064,971.0
$2,744,450.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$16,567.0
$16,567.0
$1,078,339.0
$2,937,051.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
$1,056,507.0
$2,621,952.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$263.0
$263.0
($21,832.0)
($315,099.0)
662
-------
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
FY 2009 President's Budget
STAG Resources
(Dollars in Thousands)
FY 2007
Actuals
$34,907.5
$85,865.8
$4,523.6
$1,039,998.4
$150,200.2
$0.0
$800,695.0
$96,452.7
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
FY 2008
Enacted
$24,610.0
$93,518.0
$0.0
$689,080.0
$143,723.0
$59,064.0
$829,029.0
$19,688.0
FY 2009 Pres
Bud
$15,500.0
$93,558.0
$0.0
$555,000.0
$0.0
$49,220.0
$842,167.0
$10,000.0
State/Tribal Categorical Grant Assistance $1,124,900.7 $1,064,971.0 $1,078,339.0 $1,056,507.0
Rescission of Balances from Prior Years
$0.0
-$5,000.0 -$5,000.0
-$10,000.0
TOTAL
$3,337,543.9 $2,739,450.0 $2,932,051.0 $2,611,952.0
* The Clean School Bus Initiative activities are now part of the Diesel Emission Reduction Grants program.
663
-------
Program Projects In STAG
(Dollars in Thousands)
Program Project
Brownfields Projects
Categorical Grant: Beaches
Protection
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Categorical Grant:
Environmental Information
Categorical Grant: Hazardous
Waste Financial Assistance
Categorical Grant: Homeland
Security
Categorical Grant: Lead
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint
Source (Sec. 319)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides
Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Pesticides
Program Implementation
Categorical Grant: Pollution
Control (Sec. 106)
Categorical Grant: Pollution
Prevention
Categorical Grant: Public
Water System Supervision
(PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Sector
Program
Categorical Grant: State and
Local Air Quality Management
Categorical Grant: Targeted
Watersheds
Categorical Grant: Toxics
Substances Compliance
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air
Quality Management
Categorical Grant: Tribal
General Assistance Program
Categorical Grant:
Underground Injection Control
(UIC)
Categorical Grant:
Underground Storage Tanks
Categorical Grant: Wastewater
Operator Training
Categorical Grant: Water
Quality Cooperative
Agreements
FY 2007
Actuals
$85,865.8
$10,573.4
$50,556.4
$15,830.8
$104,650.9
$3,730.2
$22,935.5
$209,889.6
$19,063.6
$13,319.3
$211,210.8
$6,121.9
$97,461.9
$7,915.0
$1,360.9
$208,567.3
$4,582.0
$5,710.3
$11,840.5
$61,569.8
$10,150.8
$29,459.4
$828.1
$1,258.1
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
$10,891.0
$22,274.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$93,518.0
$9,746.0
$48,723.0
$9,844.0
$101,734.0
$4,873.0
$13,352.0
$200,857.0
$18,419.0
$12,768.0
$218,206.0
$4,863.0
$97,554.0
$7,948.0
$1,209.0
$216,825.0
$9,844.0
$5,019.0
$10,769.0
$56,037.0
$10,721.0
$2,461.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$93,558.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$11,000.0
$103,346.0
$4,950.0
$13,564.0
$184,540.0
$18,711.0
$12,970.0
$221,664.0
$4,940.0
$99,100.0
$8,074.0
$1,828.0
$185,580.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$13,300.0
$57,925.0
$10,891.0
$22,800.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2008
Enacted v. FY
2009 Pres Bud
$40.0
$154.0
$772.0
$1,156.0
$1,612.0
$77.0
$212.0
($16,317.0)
$292.0
$202.0
$3,458.0
$77.0
$1,546.0
$126.0
$619.0
($31,245.0)
($9,844.0)
$80.0
$2,531.0
$1,888.0
$170.0
$20,339.0
$0.0
$0.0
664
-------
Categorical Grant: Wetlands
Program Development
Clean School Bus Initiative*
Congressionally Mandated
Projects
Diesel Emission Reduction
Grants
Infrastructure Assistance:
Alaska Native Villages
Infrastructure Assistance:
Clean Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance:
Drinking Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance:
Mexico Border
$16,313.7
$4,523.6
$150,200.2
$0.0
$34,907.5
$1,039,998.4
$800,695.0
$96,452.7
$16,830.0
$0.0
$0.0
$35,000.0
$15,500.0
$687,554.0
$842,167.0
$10,000.0
$16,567.0
$0.0
$143,723.0
$59,064.0
$24,610.0
$689,080.0
$829,029.0
$19,688.0
$16,830.0
$0.0
$0.0
$49,220.0
$15,500.0
$555,000.0
$842,167.0
$10,000.0
$263.0
$0.0
($143,723.0)
($9,844.0)
($9,110.0)
($134,080.0)
$13,138.0
($9,688.0)
*Clean School Bus Initiative activities are now part of the Diesel Emission Reduction Grants program.
665
-------
INFRASTRUCTURE / STAG PROJECT FINANCING
Infrastructure and Special Projects Funds
The 2009 President's Budget includes a total of $1.565 billion for EPA's Infrastructure programs
in the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) account. Approximately $1.413 billion will
support EPA's Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water; $103.6 million will support EPA's Goal 4:
Healthy Communities and Ecosystems; and $49.2 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 2009. 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 107 assessment grants under the Brownfields program, bringing the cumulative
total grants awarded to more than 1,260 by the end of FY 2009 and paving the way for
productive reuse of these properties. Brownfields grantees will also leverage 3,800
cleanup and redevelopment jobs and $685 million in cleanup and redevelopment funding.
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
In FY 2009, EPA will support the National Clean Diesel program, authorized in Sections 791-
797 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This program focuses on reducing particulate matter
(PM) by up to 95% from existing diesel engines, including on-highway and non-road equipment
666
-------
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 2009,
EPA will issue and manage various categories of Diesel Emission Reduction grants. 70 percent
of the total funding available will be used to establish: 1) competitive National Clean Diesel
Campaign (NCDC) grants to directly fund and/or finance retrofits, rebuilds, and replacement as
well as fuel switching and fuel efficiency measures associated with diesel trucks, ships, school
buses and other diesel equipment,; 2) up to 10 percent of those funds used to establish grants to
advance emerging diesel emission reduction technologies, with a focus on new technologies
applicable to ocean-going vessels, harbor craft, and goods movement; and 3) competitive grants
to help qualifying entities (states, local governments, ports, etc.) create innovative Air Quality
Finance Authorities/Programs (AQFAs) that provide low cost, flexible loans for the purchase of
new and cleaner used equipment, as recommended by the Agency's Environmental Finance
Advisory Board (EFAB). 30 percent of the total funding available will be used in formula grants
to states to implement state diesel emission reduction programs defined under the Diesel
Emission Reduction Act (DERA). These funds will support EPA's Strategy for Sustainable
Ports. The Ports initiative is comprised of many of the strategies and technologies implemented
through all four aspects of the Diesel Emission Reduction Program, as noted above. Through
this initiative EPA will reduce supply chain emissions associated with the movement of goods
through ports.
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
667
-------
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.
The FY 2009 request includes $555.0 million in funding for the CWSRF. Approximately $26
billion has been provided to capitalize the CWSRF, more than three times the original Clean
Water Act authorized level of $8.4 billion. Total CWSRF funding available for loans since 1988
through June 2007, reflecting loan repayments, state match dollars, and other funding sources,
exceeds $65 billion, of which $63 billion has been provided to communities as financial
assistance. The following table illustrates the long-term financial picture for the CWSRF:
Annual Federal Capitalization
$555 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, 2007, $8.1 billion
in capitalization grants have been awarded, amounting to loans/assistance of $12.6 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.
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.
668
-------
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.
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 $93.6 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 2009, the funding provided will result in the
assessment of 1,000 Brownfields properties. Using EPA grant dollars, the brownfields grantees
will leverage cleanup and redevelopment jobs and $900 million in cleanup and redevelopment
funding.
Mexico Border
The President's Budget 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.
Rescission of Balances from Prior Years
EPA will continue to review old unliquidated obligations for potential rescission. In FY 2009,
EPA will rescind $10.0 million from no longer viable projects.
669
-------
CATEGORICAL GRANTS PROGRAM (STAG)
(Dollars in millions)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009
Ena. Ena. Ena. Ena. Ena. Ena. Ena. Ena. Pres. Ena. Pres.
*Does not account for the 2006 $80.0 million rescission.
Categorical Grants
In FY 2009, EPA requests a total of $1.057 billion for 21 "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 2009, 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 working with the states to
establish a standardized template for states to use in developing and submitting their workplans
for continuing environmental program grants. Based on experience with initial template
670
-------
strategies gained in FY 2007 and FY 2008, EPA will continue to partner with states on
implementation in FY 2009.
HIGHLIGHTS:
State & Local Air Quality Management, Radon, and Tribal Air Quality
Management Grants
The FY 2009 request includes $207.0 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
amounts of $185.6 million and $13.3 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 or for the
implementation of national ambient air standards set to protect public health and the
environment. In FY 2009, 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 submitted the 8-hour
ozone SIPs to EPA in FY 2007 and will continue with their implementation in FY 2009. In FY
2009 states will also continue to work on implementation of their PM-2.5 and 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. Grants also will be provided to states ($3.9 million) and tribes ($2.4 million) to help
them work with sources to permit new energy projects and ensure that all Federal environmental
laws are considered in the permitting activity. Lastly, this request includes $8.1 million for
Radon grants to continue to focus efforts on priority activities to achieve health risk reduction.
Pesticide Enforcement, Toxics Substance Compliance, & Sector Program Grants
The FY 2009 request includes $25.6 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 $1.8 million for Sector
Grants. State and Tribal enforcement grants will be awarded to assist in the implementation of
compliance and enforcement provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). These grants support state and
Tribal compliance activities to protect the environment from harmful chemicals and pesticides.
Under the Pesticides Enforcement Grant program, EPA provides resources to states and Indian
tribes to conduct FIFRA compliance inspections and take appropriate enforcement actions and
implement programs for farm worker protection. Under the Toxic Substances Compliance Grant
program, states receive funding for compliance inspections of asbestos and polychlorinated
671
-------
biphenyls (PCBs). States also received funding for implementation of the state lead-base paint
certification and training, and abatement notification compliance and 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 2009 request includes $13.0 million for Pesticides Program Implementation grants.
These resources will assist states, tribes, and partners with pesticide worker safety activities,
protection of endangered species and water sources, and promotion of environmental
stewardship approaches to pesticide use. In addition, the Agency provides grants to promote
stronger Tribal pesticide programs. 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 considering the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of
pesticides. Pesticides Program Implementation Grants help state programs stay current with
changing requirements.
Lead Grants
The FY 2009 request includes $13.6 million for Lead grants. This funding will support the
development of authorized programs, including work under the new Lead Rule, 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 2009, EPA expects to reduce the
number of child lead poisoning cases to 90,000 which would put the Agency on target to
eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern by 2010.
In FY 2009, 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 intertribal 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
and community organizations reach under-served populations that may have a disproportionate
number of children with elevated blood lead levels.
672
-------
Pollution Prevention Grants
The FY 2009 request includes $4.9 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 2009, EPA is targeting a reduction of 494 million pounds of hazardous material, 1,792
million gallons of water conserved, $68 million saved through reduction in pollution and 1,581
billion BTUs conserved.
Environmental Information Grants
In FY 2009, EPA requests $11.0 million to continue the Environmental Information Exchange
Network (Exchange Network) grant program. Started in 2002, the Exchange Network grant
program provides states, territories, and tribes with assistance developing the information
management and technology (EVI/IT) capabilities they need to take full advantage of the potential
benefits provided by the Exchange Network. Enhancing and expanding the Network improves
environmental decision making and improves data quality, timeliness and accessibility while
reducing the burden on those who provide it. Now that all 50 states, seven tribes, and one
territory have nodes, the emphasis in FY 2009 has shifted from building-out IT infrastructure to
upgrading technology and expanding environmental information management and exchange.
Exchange Network grants also support the work of the Environmental Council of the States and
the National Congress of American Indians, both of which are representatives of their respective
environmental communities as well as conveners and information disseminators.
State and Tribal Underground Storage Tanks Program
The FY 2009 request includes $22.8 million for Underground Storage Tank (UST) grants. In FY
2009, EPA will make grants to states under Section 2007 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
available to support core program activities as well as the leak prevention activities under Title
XV, Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct).
In FY 2009, 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. States will continue to use the UST categorical grant funding to implement their
leak prevention and detection programs. Specifically with the UST categorical grants, states will
fund such activities as seeking State Program Approval to operate the UST program in lieu of the
Federal program, approving specific technologies to detect leaks from tanks, ensuring tank
owners and operators are complying with notification requirements, and addressing equipment
compatibility issues. EPA also will assist the states in implementing the EPAct provisions
ensuring that states are developing operator training by August 8, 2009. 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.
673
-------
Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grants
In FY 2009, 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 2009,
EPA expects to increase the number of hazardous waste facilities with new or updated controls
to prevent release by 100 facilities.
By the end of FY 2009, EPA and the authorized states also will control human exposures to
contamination at 60 RCRA corrective action facilities (from our 2008 baseline of 3,746).
Controlling migration of contaminated groundwater at 60 of these facilities and completing the
construction of final remedies at 100 of these facilities also are targeted for FY 2009.
Brownfields Grants
In FY 2009, 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 support technical outreach to address environmental
justice issues and Brownfields research.
Water Pollution Control (Clean Water Act Section 106) Grants
The FY 2009 EPA request includes $221.7 million for Water Pollution Control grants. These
funds improve water quality standards through National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting, enhanced water quality monitoring activities and Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) development. 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 83 percent of state submissions will be approvable in
2009. 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 2009 is that 68 percent of states will have updated their standards to reflect the latest
scientific information in the past three years. In FY 2009, $18.5 million will be designated for
states and tribes that participate in collecting statistically valid water monitoring data and
implement enhancements in their water monitoring programs.
Wetlands Grants
In FY 2009, 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
enhancing 3 million acres of wetlands. These grants will do this through the development and
674
-------
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 2009, 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 2009, 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 regulatory requirements, e.g., Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule and Ground Water Rule.
Tribal General Assistance Program Grants
In FY 2009, EPA's request includes $57.9 million for the Tribal General Assistance Program
(GAP) to help Federally-recognized tribes and intertribal consortia develop, implement and
assume environmental programs. In FY 2009, 91% of Federally-recognized tribes and intertribal
consortia, 526 out of a universe of 572 eligible entities, will have access to an environmental
presence.
Homeland Security Grants
In FY 2009, 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 2009, 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 2009. EPA and the states also will close
or permit Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal wells (Class V) identified during FY 2009. 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.
675
-------
BEACH Act Grants
The FY 2009 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
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 2009, EPA requests $184.6 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.
676
-------
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
677
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
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 2007
Actuals
$1,039,998.4
$1,039,998.4
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$687,554.0
$687,554.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$689,080.0
$689,080.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$555,000.0
$555,000.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($134,080.0)
($134,080.0)
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 2008, the Federal government had
invested about $26 billion in the state CWSRFs. The revolving nature of the funds and
substantial additions from states has magnified that investment to make available $65 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 2009 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, significantly contributing to the long-term
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.
678
-------
environmental goal of watersheds attaining designated uses. EPA continues to work with states
to meet several key objectives: fund projects designed as part of an integrated watershed
approach, link projects to environmental results, and maintain the CWSRFs' excellent fiduciary
condition.
The 2002 World Summit in Johannesburg adopted the goal of reducing the number of people
lacking access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 50 percent by 2015. EPA will
support this goal through the 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
the 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 the 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 2007
Actual
1,409
FY 2007
Target
1,166
FY 2008
Target
1,550
FY 2009
Target
1,660
Units
Number of
Segments
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percentage of all major
publicly-owned
treatment works
(POTWs) that comply
with their permitted
wastewater discharge
standards
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
86
FY 2009
Target
86
Units
Percent
POTWs
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Fund utilization rate
for the CWSRF.
FY 2007
Actual
96.7
FY 2007
Target
93.4
FY 2008
Target
93.5
FY 2009
Target
93.7
Units
Rate
Nationally since 2001, fund utilization has remained relatively stable and strong at over 90
percent. 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
679
-------
ratio are to be expected and reflect annual funding decisions made by each state based on its
assessment and subsequent prioritization of state water quality needs and the availability of
financial resources. The Agency expects the loan commitment rate to continue to be strong. In
addition, because the total capitalization remains approximately the same, the program is
projected to meet its long-term revolving level target of $3.4 billion.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$134,080.0) This total is the net of the FY 2008 Omnibus 1.56% rescission and the FY
2009 budget request of $555.0 million for the CWSRF. At this funding level, the total
capitalization provided between fiscal years 2004 and 2011 will total $6.8 billion. This is
in line with the Administration policy established in the 2004 Budget. Because total
capitalization remains the same, the program is expected to reach its long-term revolving
level target of $3.4 billion.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
680
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
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 2007
Actuals
$800,695.0
$800,695.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$842,167.0
$842,167.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$829,029.0
$829,029.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$842,167.0
$842,167.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$13,138.0
$13,138.0
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 DWSRF is a key
component of the EPA's sustainable infrastructure initiative.
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,2 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 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.
: Available at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/needssurvev/pdfs/2003/report needssurvev 2003.pdf.
681
-------
(See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.httnl for more information.)
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
Providing drinking water that meets health safety standards often requires an investment in the
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 2009, the DWSRF program has set a target of providing
over 445 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
Output
Measure
Number of additional
projects initiating
operations.
FY 2007
Actual
438
FY 2007
Target
430
FY 2008
Target
440
FY 2009
Target
445
Units
Projects
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Fund utilization rate
for the DWSRF.
FY 2007
Actual
88
FY 2007
Target
85
FY 2008
Target
86
FY 2009
Target
89
Units
Rate
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of population
served by CWSs that
will receive drinking
water that meets all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards through
approaches incl.
effective treatment &
source water
protection.
FY 2007
Actual
91.5
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
90
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Perrent
-1 ^'Iv'^'llL
Population
682
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of community
water systems that
meet all applicable
health-based standards
through approaches
that include effective
treatment and source
water protection.
FY 2007
Actual
89
FY 2007
Target
89
FY 2008
Target
89.5
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percent
Systems
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$13,138.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects. Funding will ensure that the Drinking Water SRF is on track to meet its long-
term revolving level target of $1.2 billion.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
683
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
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 2007
Actuals
$34,907.5
$34,907.5
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$15,500.0
$15,500.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$24,610.0
$24,610.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$15,500.0
$15,500.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($9,110.0)
($9,110.0)
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. EPA's grant to the State of Alaska provides funding to improve
or construct drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities for these communities and
thereby improve local health and sanitation conditions. This program also supports training,
technical assistance, and educational programs related to the financial management and operation
and maintenance of sanitation systems.
(See http://www.epa.gov/owm/mab/indian/anvrs.htm for more information.)
FY 2009 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 2009 investment of $15.5 million will leverage funding to provide an additional 500 to 900
homes in rural Alaska with wastewater service and drinking water that meets public health
standards. In FY 2009, 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.
EPA will be implementing its ANV "Management Controls Policy" (adopted in June 2007) to
assure that funds are used efficiently by allocating them to projects that are ready to proceed or
progressing satisfactorily. The Agency also will develop a plan to institutionalize the
management framework of this program to ensure continued program effectiveness.
The Agency has made great strides in implementing 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 concluded that all findings in the previous (FY 2003 and
2004) audits had been addressed or were being resolved. There have been no new audit findings
684
-------
or recommendations since that time. In the 2006 PART reassessment, 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 were completed by the State in calendar year
2007. In addition, the State of Alaska has completed an independent review of the Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium financial process and records and will conduct follow-up activities
based on its recommendations. EPA also will focus in the coming year on closing out completed
projects and program grants, in order to document accomplishments and resolve any remaining
grant issues. A standard format for final technical reports will be developed, and individual
final technical reports will be provided for each completed grant.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of serviceable
rural Alaska homes
with access to drinking
water supply and
wastewater disposal.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
Late 2008
FY 2007
Target
92
FY 2008
Target
94
FY 2009
Target
96
Units
Percent
Homes
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Number of homes that
received improved
service per $1,000,000
of Program funding.
FY 2007
Actual
29
FY 2007
Target
60
FY 2008
Target
45
FY 2009
Target
50
Units
Households
The results achieved for the ANV program efficiency measure have fluctuated significantly, with
a significant drop in the FY 2007 actual efficiency results. This is due to the measure being
based on the applications that are received by the Village Safe Water Program from the eligible
communities in any given year, and the resulting ranking of these applications according to the
Program priority system. Costs per home served will vary significantly, depending on whether
the applicant community already has some established infrastructure or not.
Work under this program supports EPA's Protect Water Quality objective.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$9,110.0) The Congressionally directed increase provided in the FY 2008 omnibus
appropriation is not carried forward in the FY 2009 request. The FY 2009 investment
will leverage funding to serve 500-900 homes. This total is the net change, including the
restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
Statutory Authority:
SOW A Amendments of 1996.
685
-------
Brownfields Projects
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
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 2007
Actuals
$85,865.8
$4,420.0
$90,285.8
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$89,258.0
$0.0
$89,258.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$93,518.0
$0.0
$93,518.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$93,558.0
$0.0
$93,558.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$40.0
$0.0
$40.0
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) and related authorities.
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 percent 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 a broader sense, EPA has been at the forefront of coordinating with other Federal agencies. In
cooperation with its Federal partners, EPA developed the Brownfields Federal Partnership
Action Agenda. The Action Agenda describes the commitment of more than 20 Federal
agencies to help communities more effectively prevent, assess, safely clean up, and reuse
brownfields.3
3
Refer to http://www.epa.gov/docs/swerosps/bf/partners/federal partnerships.htm.
686
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, funding provided will result in the assessment of 1,000 brownfields properties and
the cleanup of 60 brownfields properties. Brownfields grantees will leverage 5,000 cleanup and
redevelopment jobs and $900 million in cleanup and redevelopment funding. Other activities
include:
• Funding and technical support for an estimated 129 assessment grants for recipients to
inventory, assess, and conduct cleanup and redevelopment planning at brownfields sites.
• The Agency will award approximately seven RLF cooperative agreements of up to
$1,000,000 each per eligible entity. The RLF program which enables 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.
• Funding also will support at least 96 grants to eligible entities to clean up properties. The
Agency will award direct cleanup grants of up to $200 thousand 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 45
brownfields communities.
• Brownfields job training and development grants of up to $200 thousand each for a two
year period. This funding will provide for at least 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).
• Continued support for the 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 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
1,000
FY 2008
Target
1,000
FY 2009
Target
1000
Units
Properties
687
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Acres of Brownfields
properties made ready
for reuse.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
225
FY 2009
Target
225
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Billions of dollars of
cleanup and
redevelopment funds
leveraged at
Brownfields sites.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
0.9
FY 2008
Target
0.9
FY 2009
Target
0.9
Units
Billions of
Dollars
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Number of properties
cleaned up using
Brownfields funding.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
60
FY 2008
Target
60
FY 2009
Target
60
Units
Properties
The Brownfields Projects contributes overall to the Brownfields Program's goal and measures
and also contributes to EPA efforts to assess and clean up brownfields, as described in EPA's FY
2006-2011 Strategic Plan.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$40.0) This change reflects a minor increase to this program.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA as amended by SBLRBRA (P.L. 107-118); RCRA Section 8001; GMRA (1990);
SWDA; FGCAA.
688
-------
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
CA Emission Reduction Project
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$35,000.0
$0.0
$35,000.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$49,220.0
$9,844.0
$59,064.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$49,220.0
$0.0
$49,220.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$0.0
($9,844.0)
($9,844.0)
0.0
Program Project Description:
These grant funds support the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program (DERA) authorized in
sections 791-797 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. DERA provides immediate emission
reductions from existing diesel engines through engine retrofits, rebuilds and replacements,
switching to cleaner fuels, idling reduction strategies and other clean diesel strategies. These
strategies can reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions up to 95 percent, smog-forming
emissions, such as hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, up to 90 percent and greenhouse gases up to
20 percent. The program covers existing diesel engines used in both highway and nonroad
vehicles and equipment. The diesel engines covered are not subject to new, more stringent
emissions standards implemented in 2007 and 2008. These older engines often remain in service
for 20 or more years. The program targets fleets in five sectors: freight, construction, school
buses, agriculture, and ports.
Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 70 percent of the total funds appropriated will be used to
provide national grants and loans that achieve diesel emission reductions. Up to 10 percent of
those funds may be used for diesel emission emerging technology demonstration grants. Finally,
30 percent of the total funds appropriated will be used to provide formula grants to states to
establish and support state grant or loan diesel emission reduction programs.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will issue and manage various categories of Diesel Emission Reduction grants
including: (l)(a) 70 percent of the total funding available will be used to establish competitive
National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC) grants to directly fund and/or finance retrofits,
rebuilds, and replacement as well as fuel switching and fuel efficiency measures associated with
diesel trucks, ships, school buses and other diesel equipment, (b) Up to 10 percent of those funds
will be used to establish grants to advance emerging diesel emission reduction technologies, with
a focus on new technologies applicable to ocean-going vessels, harbor craft, and goods
movement;, (c) The Agency will establish a pilot project involving competitive grants to help
689
-------
qualifying entities (states, local governments, ports etc) create innovative Air Quality Finance
Authorities/Programs (AQFAs) that provide low cost, flexible loans for the purchase of new and
cleaner used equipment, as recommended by the Agency's Environmental Finance Advisory
Board EFAB). (2) The remaining 30 percent of the total funding available will be used in
formula grants to states to implement state diesel emission reduction programs defined under the
DERA.
In FY 2009, EPA will begin an initiative focused on ports that will utilize many of the strategies
and technologies implemented through all four aspects of the Diesel Emission Reduction
Program, as noted above. Through this initiative, EPA will solicit proposals for projects that
would reduce supply chain emissions associated with the movement of goods through ports.
These proposals would then compete with other project proposals under the National Clean
Diesel Campaign mentioned above. Explosive growth in international trade and goods
movement is placing pressure on U.S. ports and our transportation supply chain infrastructure.
Pollution from port related activities increasingly pose health and environmental risks to those
living around ports, distribution centers and along major supply chain corridors where goods
move through ports. Between 2004 and 2005, waterborne trade in the U.S. increased by 17% in
volume and containerized cargo will triple by 2020. Coastal and inland port authorities, terminal
operators, vessel owners, rail and trucking firms and their customers rely on diesel engines to
move goods everyday. Total freight operations in 2005, contributed 2.2 million tons of NOx,
60,000 of PM and almost 400 million tons of CC>2 nationwide.
EPA also will continue to provide diesel emission reduction technology verification as well as
quantification and evaluation of emissions reduction strategies and their cost effectiveness.
Funds will continue to support the Agency's well-established Clean School Bus Program.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple performance objectives. Currently, there are no
performance measures specific to this program. EPA estimates that the $49.2 million for Federal
and State Diesel Emission Reduction grants/loans would leverage at least $100 million in
funding assistance and reduce PM by approximately 7,000 tons, achieving up to an estimated
$2.0 billion in health benefits.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$9,844.0) This decrease reflects the discontinuation of a congressionally directed
program to the San Joaquin and South Coast Air Quality Management Districts and
reduces a congressionally directed increase in the FY 2008 Omnibus. All priority
activities in this program can be funded within the base resources..
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.
690
-------
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Program Area: State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Communities
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$96,452.7
$96,452.7
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$19,688.0
$19,688.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($9,688.0)
($9,688.0)
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 (four U.S. and six Mexican) 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 providing homes access to basic sanitation, EPA and its partners will reduce the
discharge of untreated domestic wastewater into surface and ground water.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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.
Using previously funded projects as an indicator, we anticipate that the FY 2009 investment of
$10 million will fund 4-6 water infrastructure projects, benefiting approximately 32,000 people
once completed. This level of funding will allow the program to meet its annual targets. 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.
691
-------
Since 1994, Congress has appropriated approximately $953 million to EPA for the U.S.-Mexico
Border Water Infrastructure Program. Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) funds
currently at the NADBank are assigned to projects that are under development, in construction,
or in project closeout. To ensure responsible fiscal management of these and future funds, in
2005 the Agency began implementing project management enhancements to strengthen the
program and reduce the BEIF balance. These enhancements focus on improving fiscal
management while improving project completion rates to ensure the timely delivery of safe
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure to communities along the border. Project
management enhancements include creating time limits for project development and construction
phases, and instituting a deadline to start BEIF disbursements within two years of EPA's
approval of the project financing package. Further, EPA finalized a fiscal policy in FY 2007
which provides clear direction for the liquidation of funds and completion of older projects.
These reforms have already led to improvements in the program's unliquidated balances and
project completions. As of December 2007, the program has completed 35 of 72 certified
projects and reduced the unliquidated balance by $91 million, to $209 million.4
In FY 2008, EPA plans to conduct the third bi-annual Border-wide competition of projects using
a risk-based prioritization system that enables the program to direct BEIF funding to projects that
demonstrate high human health benefits, cost-effectiveness, institutional efficiency and
sustainability. The U.S. Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program underwent a PART
evaluation for the first time in 2004 and received a rating of "adequate."
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Additional people
served per million
dollars (US and
Mexico federal
expenditures) (under
development)
FY 2007
Actual
10,292
FY 2007
Target
3,200
FY 2008
Target
3,200
FY 2009
Target
3,200
Units
People/M
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of additional
homes provided safe
drinking water in the
Mexican border area
that lacked access to
drinking water in 2003 .
FY 2007
Actual
1,276
FY 2007
Target
1,200
FY 2008
Target
2,500
FY 2009
Target
2,500
Units
More Homes
4 EPA is in the process of obligating an additional $40.2 million to the NADBank for water infrastructure projects
selected through the FY 2007/2008 prioritized project selection process.
692
-------
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of additional
homes provided
adequate wastewater
sanitation in the
Mexican border area
that lacked access to
wastewater sanitation
in 2003.
FY 2007
Actual
73,475
FY 2007
Target
70,750
FY 2008
Target
15,000
FY 2009
Target
15,000
Units
More Homes
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• ($4,944.0) This reduces congressionally directed funding in the FY 2008 Omnibus,
including a 1.56% rescission, for El Paso and Brownsville projects.
• ($4,922.0) The requested level of funding will allow the Agency to fund approved
projects to continue efforts toward providing access to safe drinking water and sanitary
systems for underserved communities in the region. 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.
693
-------
Program Area: Categorical Grants
694
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$10,573.4
$10,573.4
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$9,746.0
$9,746.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$154.0
$154.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
States and territories currently monitor 3,771 beaches.
monitoring beaches in FY 2009, 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.
695
-------
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of days of
beach season that
coastal and Great
Lakes beaches
monitored by State
beach safety programs
are open and safe for
swimming.
FY 2007
Actual
95.2
FY 2007
Target
92.6
FY 2008
Target
92.6
FY 2009
Target
93
Units
Percent of
Days/Season
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$154.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
Statutory Authority:
CWA; BEACH Act of 2000.
696
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$50,556.9
$50,556.9
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$48,723.0
$48,723.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$772.0
$772.0
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. 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.5
FY 2009 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 response programs across all 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.
Refer to http://wvvw.epa.gov/doc!^swerosp!^iypubs/st res prog report.htm.
697
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the EPA "Communities" objective. The Brownfields
Categorical Grant program contributes to the achievement of the "properties assessed" measure.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$772.0) This change reflects the restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects. The additional funding will be provided to authorized grantees as part of their
grant allocations to support Brownfields programs.
Statutory Authority:
CERCLA as amended by SBLRBRA (P.L. 107-118); RCRA Section 8001; GMRA (1990);
SWDA; FGCAA.
698
-------
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$15,830.8
$15,830.8
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$12,850.0
$12,850.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$9,844.0
$9,844.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$11,000.0
$11,000.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,156.0
$1,156.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Exchange Network grants provide funding to states, territories, Federally-recognized Indian
tribes, and 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 Network has been designed and is being
built using 21st Century information technology, eliminating archaic reporting mechanisms
(paper, diskettes, etc.) that promoted errors and late submissions. The funding, which
supplements state and tribal investments, 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 they
need for decision making using the Network.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the Exchange Network Grants Program will emphasize activities in three areas:
1) Because all 50 state environmental agencies now have operational nodes (connections to the
Network), the FY 2009 program will focus on developing sustainable Network infrastructure for
tribes, territories, and links with other state and Federal agencies to continue to grow the
Network.
2) The program will focus on the development and exchange of regulatory and non-regulatory
data flows. The major emphasis of the grant program will be to expand the number of regulatory
data flows and develop and exchange non-regulatory data flows such as surface water quality.
Exchange Network partners also will need continued support to augment the data available to
other partners through their nodes. These efforts will support partners' program and business
needs by facilitating better environmental and health decisions. Finally, these grants will enable
partners to re-engineer their business process to include health data and to integrate it with
environmental information in ways not currently possible.
699
-------
3) Another emphasis is 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; they also support innovation and improve the quality
of individual grant products which, in turn, makes it easier to promote their re-use among a larger
cross-section of Network partners.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports multiple strategic objectives.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,000.0) This increase will allow more states and tribes to upgrade their data
exchange connections to a new technology protocol, thereby improving standards,
security and authentication.
• (+$156.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority
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.
700
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$104,650.9
$104,650.9
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$103,346.0
$103,346.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$101,734.0
$101,734.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$103,346.0
$103,346.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,612.0
$1,612.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) directs 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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,
permit renewals, or other approved controls to meet the FY 2009 Strategic Plan goal.
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.
o Issue permit renewals for hazardous waste management facilities to keep permit
controls up to date.
701
-------
• 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 and the
migration of contaminated groundwater, and make determinations regarding construction
of final remedies as part of the efforts toward meeting the FY 2009 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 million
dollars of program cost. The FY 2005 baseline was set in July 2006, and the program began
reporting this 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.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,612.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects. The additional funding will be made available to all authorized grantees as part
of their grant allocations in support of hazardous waste management oversight.
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).
702
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$3,730.2
$3,730.2
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,950.0
$4,950.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$4,873.0
$4,873.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$4,950.0
$4,950.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$77.0
$77.0
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 utility vulnerability assessments and associated security enhancements; communicating
vision, mission, and goals of the Water Sector-Specific Plan and the key features of an active and
effective security program; helping to ensure best security practices for small systems; promoting
outreach and education at small systems; promoting mutual aid compacts development;
supporting the development of system redundancy, a national laboratory system, and disaster
mitigation plans; 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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' 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 and
training materials) focused on improving security and emergency response. See
http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/fmanceassist.cfm for more information.
703
-------
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's Protect Human Health objective. Currently, there are
no performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$77.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA; CWA; Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Emergency and Response Act of 2002.
704
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$22,935.5
$22,935.5
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$13,564.0
$13,564.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$13,352.0
$13,352.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$13,564.0
$13,564.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$212.0
$212.0
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.
The program is an important contributor to the Federal government's goal to virtually eliminate
childhood lead poisoning by 2010, and that goal is its key performance measure. To accomplish
the goal, the Agency will:
• Establish hazard control methods and standards to ensure that homeowners and others
have access to safe, reliable and effective methods to reduce lead exposure;
• Maintain a national infrastructure of lead remediation professionals trained and certified
to implement those standards; and
• Provide information to housing occupants so they can make informed decisions about
lead hazards in their homes.
The Lead Categorical Grant program contributes to the Lead program's goals by maintaining a
national infrastructure of trained and certified lead remediation professionals and supporting
targeted outreach to populations deemed most at risk of exposure to lead from lead-based paint,
dust, and soil.
See http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/index.html for more information.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, the 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.
EPA will continue to implement the lead-based paint activities through the Training and
Certification program 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
705
-------
qualified training providers. Since their inception in 1998, the state, Tribal and Federal programs
have certified more than 24,000 individuals.
In FY 2009, EPA will focus on implementation of a final regulation to address lead-safe work
practices for renovation, repair, and painting. Activities will likely include training and
certification requirements as well as updating accreditation requirements for training courses.
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 living in 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 2009 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 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 assessment in 2005, receiving a "moderately
effective" rating and the third highest points rating awarded to EPA programs through that date.
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
20 days of EPA effort to process). 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 grant and contract funding. In
FY 2009, the Agency will implement recently completed PART follow-up actions to improve
measures used in the State Grant Reporting Template and to further improve results reporting
from program partners. For more information, visit
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/index.html.
Performance Targets:
Activities for this appropriation support PART measures listed for Toxic Substances: Lead Risk
Reduction Program (EPM).
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$212.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA.
706
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$209,889.6
$209,889.6
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$194,040.0
$194,040.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$200,857.0
$200,857.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$184,540.0
$184,540.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($16,317.0)
($16,317.0)
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 transfers, 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 CWA Section
303(d)) to meet water quality standards.
(See http://www.epa. gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2003/October/Dav-23/w26755 .htm for more
information.)
FY 2009 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
2009, 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;
707
-------
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
over time that they deem necessary to meet their water quality goals. Full requirements for these
plans are described in detail in the NFS program grant guidelines. (For more information see
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact. html.)
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 Funds (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 loans to finance systems where appropriate.
In 2004, the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program underwent a PART review and received an
overall rating of "adequate." 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 thousand tons, respectively. All 3 of
these measures have been exceeded in each year, except for 2005, when they were partially met.
EPA believes that exceptions 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 that are not nationally tracked for load reduction
calculations, like pathogens, temperature, or acidity.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Additional pounds (in
millions) of reduction
to total nitrogen
loadings.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
8.5
FY 2008
Target
8.5
FY 2009
Target
8.5
Units
Lbs in
Millions
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Reduction in
phosphorus loadings
(millions of pounds).
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
4.5
FY 2008
Target
4.5
FY 2009
Target
4.5
Units
Lbs in
Millions
708
-------
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Additional tons of
reduction to total
sediment loadings.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
700,000
FY 2008
Target
700,000
FY 2009
Target
700,000
Units
Tons of
Reductions
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$16,317.0) This total is the net of a reduction of congressionally directed funding in the
FY 2009 Omnibus and a programmatic reduction of $9.5 million for the nonpoint source
program. EPA and the states have typically exceeded their targets for sediment and
nutrient loadings and EPA will work with states to ensure continued focus on high
priority activities to restore impaired waters. This total also includes the restoration of
the FY 2008 Omnibus 1.56% rescission.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
709
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$19,063.6
$19,063.6
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$18,419.0
$18,419.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$292.0
$292.0
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.6
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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.
' For additional information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/fifra.html.
710
-------
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
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 grantees' data in
January 2007 and has started to analyze the information to develop program metrics for
demonstrating results.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$292.0) This change reflects restoration the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
Statutory Authority:
FIFRA.
711
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$13,319.3
$13,319.3
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$12,970.0
$12,970.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$12,768.0
$12,768.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$12,970.0
$12,970.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$202.0
$202.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Agency provides grants to assist states, tribes and partners with worker safety activities,
protection of endangered species and water sources, and promotion of environmental
stewardship. In addition, the Agency provides grants to promote stronger Tribal pesticide
programs. 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 considering the economic,
social and environmental costs and benefits of the use of pesticides. The Agency achieves this
goal through implementation of its 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, give input regarding effectiveness and soundness
of regulatory decisions, and develop data to measure program 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 provide resources for those closest to the source of potential risks from
pesticides since they are in a position to better evaluate risks and implement risk reduction
measures.
FY 2009 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 pesticide 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
712
-------
continue to be a major keystone in the success of the Agency's human health protection. (See
http://www.epa.gov/oppfod01/safety/applicators/applicators.htm.)
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,
communication, education related to use limitations, review and distribution of Endangered
Species Protection Bulletins, and mapping and development of endangered species protection
plans. This initiative supports the Agency's mission to protect the environment from pesticide
risk.
Protection of Water Sources from Pesticide Exposure
Protecting the nation's water sources from possible pesticide contamination is another
component of EPA's environmental protection efforts. The Agency provides funding through
cooperative agreements to states and Tribal pesticide lead agencies to investigate and respond to
water resource contamination by pesticides. States and tribes are also expected to evaluate local
pesticides that have potential to contaminate water resources, and take steps to prevent or reduce
contamination where pesticide concentrations approach or exceed levels of concern.
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP):
The PESP is a voluntary program that forms partnerships between EPA and pesticide user groups
to reduce pesticide use and risk through pollution prevention strategies and promoting the use of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques. 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 associations and individual companies.
EPA will continue to support risk reduction by providing assistance to promote the use of safer
alternatives to traditional chemical methods of pest control. EPA supports the development and
evaluation of new pest management technologies that contribute to reducing both health and
environmental risks from pesticide use. For additional information, see
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppdl/PESP/index.htm.
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
713
-------
exposure to some chemicals or create unique chemical exposure scenarios. For additional
information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/tribes/.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports the Chemical and Pesticide Risks objective. Currently there
are no performance measures specific to this program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$202.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects.
Statutory Authority:
PRIA 2; FIFRA; FFDCA; FQPA; ESA.
714
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$211,210.8
$211,210.8
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$221,664.0
$221,664.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$218,206.0
$218,206.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$221,664.0
$221,664.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$3,458.0
$3,458.0
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 CWA 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 assessment and standards development, 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 to assist Regional Offices overseeing direct implementation programs through the
Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) program. 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
This program supports states, interstate agencies, and tribes in their efforts to implement key
CWA programs that will restore and improve the quality of waters, allowing the Agency to
achieve the long-term national goal of assessing all waters, protecting high quality waters, and
addressing 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 resources
for efficient 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 2009, states and tribes, working with
715
-------
EPA, will issue a report on the statistically-valid baseline conditions of lakes nationwide. States
and tribes also will be analyzing samples for a statistically-valid survey of baseline conditions in
rivers and a second survey of wadeable streams to determine trends in stream conditions. A
report on trends in streams and the baseline condition of rivers will be issued in 2011. States and
tribes, working with EPA, will design and collect field data for a fourth survey of coastal water
conditions. In addition, planning for a survey of wetlands is underway. The intent is that
surveys of the nation's waters will be repeated periodically to track trends in water quality,
giving decision makers and the public the information they need to determine the effectiveness
of the Agency's investments in water quality protection.
In FY 2009, $18.5 million will be designated for states and tribes that participate in collecting
statistically valid water monitoring data and implement enhancements in their water monitoring
programs. EPA will continue to work closely with the states to adopt statistically-valid surveys
into their state-level monitoring program. Unless at least five additional states meet the criteria
for improvement, a portion of the capacity-building funds in the monitoring initiative will be
reallocated in FY 2009 to those states that are implementing state-level statistically-valid
surveys.
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
almost 22,000 state TMDLs were completed through FY 2007) and we expect to develop more
than 3,000 additional TMDLs in FY 2009. 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 will continue to implement the "Permitting for Environmental Results Strategy,"
which focuses limited resources on the most critical environmental problems through program
assessments, permit quality reviews, and other actions to ensure the integrity of the program;
concentrating on environmental results by tracking priority permits and encouraging trading and
watershed-based permitting; and fostering efficiency in permitting program operations. In the
second quarter of 2008, EPA expects to finalize a rule that incorporates financial incentives for
states that implement adequate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) fee
systems. In FY 2009, EPA will award funds to states that choose to participate in this voluntary
program.
New rules will be finalized in FY 2008 for discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs), and states will work to assure that permits cover all discharging CAFOs by
February 27, 2009. In addition, states will continue to ensure that all Phase II municipal separate
storm sewer systems (MS4s) and construction sites covered by Phase II of the storm water
program are covered by permits.
716
-------
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 83 percent of state and territorial submissions
will be approvable in FY 2009. 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 2009 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.
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/cwfmance/pollutioncontrol.htm for more information.)
The Water Pollution Control Grants program underwent a PART evaluation 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 statistically-valid surveys of water condition; 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. EPA announced the proposed rule and conducted a
public comment process, which included a public meeting and two comment periods,
during FY 2007. The Agency expects to finalize the rule in the second quarter of 2008.
Performance Targets:
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 info from
EPA or sources not
considered in previous
standards.
FY 2007
Actual
66.1
FY 2007
Target
67
FY 2008
Target
68
FY 2009
Target
68
Units
Percent
States/Terr.
717
-------
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Percentage of high
priority state NPDES
permits that are
scheduled to be
reissued.
FY 2007
Actual
112
FY 2007
Target
95
FY 2008
Target
95
FY 2009
Target
95
Units
Percent
Permits
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Cost per water segment
restored.
FY 2007
Actual
512,735
FY 2007
Target
615,694
FY 2008
Target
684,200
FY 2009
Target
725,902
Units
Cost Per
Segment
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Number of TMDLs
that are established by
States and approved by
EPA on schedule
consistent with
national policy
(cumulative).
FY 2007
Actual
21,685
FY 2007
Target
20,232
FY 2008
Target
28,527
FY 2009
Target
31,587
Units
TMDLs
Measure
Type
Ouput
Measure
Percentage of major
dischargers in
Significant
Noncompliance (SNC)
at any time during the
fiscal year.
FY 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
22.5
FY 2008
Target
22.5
FY 2009
Target
22.5
Units
Percentage
Dischargers
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 2007
Actual
1,409
FY 2007
Target
1,166
FY 2008
Target
1,550
FY 2009
Target
1,660
Units
Number of
Segments
EPA works with states to ensure they develop TMDLs for impaired waters within a timeframe
consistent with national policy (i.e.., 8 to 13 years). In August of 2007, EPA adopted a
clarification to the TMDL counting methodology to more directly reflect the pollutants addressed
in TMDLs. As a result of this counting methodology change, the cumulative fiscal year Water
Pollution Control Actuals have been revised, resulting in a cumulative net reduction of 1,057
718
-------
TMDLs. Actuals and targets for fiscal year 2007 and earlier were also adjusted consistent with
this revised methodology.
Note: Because a TMDL is a plan for attaining water quality standards, the terms "approved" and
"established" refer to the completion of the TMDL itself and not necessarily its implementation.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$3,458.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects and will be used to restore baseline funding for the probabilistic monitoring
initiative, restore baseline funding for Tribal and interstate programs, and provide
additional funds to states that implement the NPDES permit fee incentive rule.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
719
-------
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Objective(s): Improve Environmental Performance through Pollution Prevention and Other
Stewardship Practices
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$6,121.9
$6,121.9
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,940.0
$5,940.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$4,863.0
$4,863.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$4,940.0
$4,940.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$77.0
$77.0
0.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
The goal of the P2 Grants Program is to assist businesses in identifying better environmental
strategies and solutions for reducing or eliminating waste at the source. Funds awarded through
this grant program to states and state entities (i.e., colleges and universities) and Federally-
recognized tribes and Intertribal Consortia help to support work with businesses and industry to
reduce the release of potentially harmful pollutants across all environmental media including air,
water, and land. The program supports projects that reflect comprehensive and coordinated
pollution prevention planning and implementation efforts within the state or tribe to ensure that
businesses and industry have ample opportunities to implement pollution prevention as a cost-
effective way of meeting or exceeding Federal and state regulatory requirements.
The grants are awarded by EPA's Regional offices. This enables the Agency to focus these
resources on regional priorities. In addition to supporting traditional P2 technical assistance
programs, many states have utilized P2 Grants to assist businesses by initiating regulatory
integration projects to develop prevention strategies in state core media programs, train
regulatory staff on P2 concepts, and examine opportunities for incorporating pollution prevention
into permits, inspections, and enforcement. States also have established programs in non-
industrial sectors such as agriculture, energy, health, and transportation.
720
-------
The Agency also will continue to support the Pollution Prevention Information Network grant
program which funds the services of a network of regional centers, collectively called the
Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx) that provides information to state technical
assistance centers. For more information please visit
http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/grants/ppis/ppis.htm.
EPA's Pollution Prevention Program, including this Categorical Grant Program, underwent
PART review in 2006 and received a "moderately effective" rating and the third highest point
rating awarded to EPA programs through that date, confirming that the program produces
important environmental results in a well-managed and efficient manner. 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, all of which will be brought to completion prior to
and during FY 2009.
Performance Targets:
Activities for this appropriation support PART measures listed for the Pollution Prevention
Program funded under EPA's Environmental Program Management account.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$77.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% restoration to all program projects.
Statutory Authority:
PPA: TSCA.
721
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$97,461.9
$97,461.9
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$99,100.0
$99,100.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$97,554.0
$97,554.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$99,100.0
$99,100.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,546.0
$1,546.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) grant program provides grants to states and tribes
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 in those locations, 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 Tribal authorities achieving primacy.
(See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/pwss.html for more information.)
722
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
EPA will continue to support state and Tribal efforts to meet new and existing drinking water
standards through the PWSS grant program. In FY 2009, the Agency will continue to 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
Ground Water Rule or "GWR" ); and
3) Data quality issues are identified and addressed.
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, the performance
measures directly contribute to the PWSS grant program 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 of community
water systems that
meet all applicable
health-based standards
through approaches
that include effective
treatment and source
water protection.
FY 2007
Actual
89
FY 2007
Target
89
FY 2008
Target
89.5
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percent
Systems
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Percent of population
served by CWSs that
will receive drinking
water that meets all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards through
approaches incl.
effective treatment &
source water
protection.
FY 2007
Actual
91.5
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
90
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percent
Population
723
-------
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,546.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects across all programs. These funds will support the Administrator's commitment
of ensuring clean and safe water.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
724
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$7,915.0
$7,915.0
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$8,074.0
$8,074.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$7,948.0
$7,948.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$8,074.0
$8,074.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$126.0
$126.0
0.0
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 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. This voluntary
program includes national, Regional, state, and Tribal programs and activities that promote radon
risk reduction activities.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, states will:
• Continue to focus their efforts on increasing risk reduction actions among consumers,
homeowners, real estate professionals, homebuilders, and local governments.
• Work with EPA to ensure that SIRG funds achieve the following results: homes
mitigated, homes built with radon resistant new construction, and schools mitigated or
built with radon resistant new construction.
• Work with EPA to align performance measures.
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 state radon grantee performance
data available to the public via a website or other easily accessible means.
725
-------
The State Indoor Radon Grants fund outreach and education programs in most states to reduce
the public-health impact of radon, with an average award per state of $160,000 annually. EPA
targets this funding to support states with the greatest populations at highest risk and
supplements grant dollars with technical support to transfer "best practices" from high-achieving
states to promote effective program implementation across the Nation.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Total Cost (public and
private) per future
premature cancer
death prevented
through lowered
radon exposure.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
FY 2009
Target
415,000
Units
Dollars
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Number of additional
homes (new and
existing) with radon
reducing features
FY 2007
Actual
late 2008
FY 2007
Target
190,000
FY 2008
Target
225,000
FY 2009
Target
265,000
Units
Homes
Program goals are the result of the total funding the program area receives through EPM, S&T,
and SIRG funding.
In FY 2009, EPA's goal is to add 265,000 homes with 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 prevent approximately 875 future premature cancer deaths
(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
FY2009.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$126.0) This change reflects restoration of the FY 2008 Omnibus 1.56% rescission
and will support enhanced radon efforts in high priority radon areas.
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.
726
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$1,360.9
$1,360.9
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,228.0
$2,228.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,209.0
$1,209.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$1,828.0
$1,828.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$619.0
$619.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
Strong state and Tribal Enforcement and Compliance Assurance programs are 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 and Tribal agencies that are
responsible for implementing authorized, delegated, or approved environmental programs.7
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue at a reduced level 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 2009 annual funding priorities for the multi-media grants program 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/organizations.
For more information, refer to: www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/stag/index.html
727
-------
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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's objective to achieve environmental protection through
compliance. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$600.0) This reflects an increase to the states for the transition to the Integrated
Compliance Information System-National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-
NPDES), especially in the area of data migration (i.e., transferring data from PCS to
ICIS-NPDES and ensuring its quality). The increase would also support other efforts
under this Program, for example: 1) general capacity building for states and tribal
compliance and enforcement programs; 2) specialized training for states to enhance their
involvement in EPA's national compliance and enforcement priorities; and 3) Air Facility
System (AFS) Data Quality and Completeness activities which support the Clean Air Act
(CAA) enforcement and compliance program.
• (+$19.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
Statutory Authority:
RLBPHRA; RCRA; CWA; SOW A; CAA; TSCA; EPCRA; FIFRA; ODA; NAAEC; LPA-
US/MX-BR; NEPA; MPRSA.
728
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$208,567.3
$208,567.3
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$185,180.0
$185,180.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$216,825.0
$216,825.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$185,580.0
$185,580.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
($31,245.0)
($31,245.0)
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. The continuing programs funded
under Section 105 include development and operation of air quality 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.
Please see http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/ for more details.
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
This program funds more than 100 state and local air pollution control agencies and an interstate
air pollution transport commission to implement the requirements of the Clean Air Act. States
submitted State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA in FY 2007
and submitted Regional haze SIPs in December 2007. States also will submit fine particle
(PM2.5) SIPs in April 2008. Although there is no definite schedule for updating SIPs, there are a
number of events that trigger SIP updates. For example, when EPA promulgates a new NAAQS,
states must update their SIPs within three years. In FY 2009, EPA will work with states to
correct any deficiencies in their FY 2007 and FY 2008 SIP submissions, and provide technical
assistance in implementing their plans for the 8-hour ozone standard, the PM2.5 standard, and
Regional haze.
In 2007, EPA proposed and requested comments on a range of options for revising the ozone
standard. Any new ozone standards will be published in final form in the spring of 2008. EPA
will provide assistance to state and local air agencies in developing recommendations, by the
729
-------
spring of calendar year 2009, for the designations of attainment and nonattainment areas under
the new standard(s). EPA will then prepare to publish final designations for a potential new
ozone standard by the spring of 2010.
In October 2006, EPA revised the PM2.5 NAAQS for 24-hour concentrations making it more
stringent. In connection with this NAAQS revision, about 50 existing PM 2 5 monitoring sites
began in FY 2008 to sample for PM 2.5 every day, instead of every third day, to provide greater
accuracy in eventual attainment/nonattainment designations. Although the final rule did not
revise the required numbers of PM 2.5 monitors or how they must be sited, a number of states
voluntarily shifted monitoring equipment to new locations to investigate possible problem areas
with respect to the revised NAAQS. As of December 2007, states submitted their
recommendations to EPA regarding attainment/nonattainment status with respect to the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. In FY 2009, the states will be working with EPA to finalize designations. Once
designations are complete, states will be given three years to develop and submit SIP revisions
that demonstrate how and when their nonattainment areas will come into attainment.
Concurrent with the promulgation of the revised PM2.5 NAAQS, 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, sulfur dioxide,
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 PM-10 monitoring networks, even though the minimum requirements
were not changed. The number of PM-10 monitors currently in place exceeds minimum
requirements, and many monitors are located in areas with low PM-10 concentrations. EPA
believes that ozone and PM25 networks should remain about their current size, with some
shifting of sites for better data value.
The October 2006 final PM2.5 NAAQS rule also 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 PMio-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 FY 2009, more states will start selecting the sites for this newly required form of
monitoring, acquire new equipment, and become proficient in its operation. 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 from air toxics. 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 monitoring of ambient air toxics. In FY 2009, 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
730
-------
pollution control agencies across the country, and the associated quality assurance, data analysis,
and methods support.
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 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
7008
FY 2007
Target
21
FY 2008
Target
26
FY 2009
Target
29
Units
Percentage
• Achieve a 29 percent cumulative reduction in the number of days with Air Quality Index
(AQI) values over 100 since 2003, weighted by population and AQI value.
• Achieve a 23 percent cumulative reduction in the average number of days, during the
ozone season, that the ozone standard is exceeded in non-attainment areas, weighted by
population.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$3,500.0) This reflects EPA's transfer of ownership and operation of air sampling
equipment in the California Mexico Air Monitoring Network to the State of Baja
California, Mexico, and the completion of air toxics analyses for the Great Lakes. This
also reflects the net change including restoration of the FY 2008 Omnibus 1.56%
rescission. All priority activities in this program can be funded within base resources.
• (+$3,900.0) This funding increase supports state and local work for effective and early
collaboration on energy projects to ensure the seamless integration of the Federal
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and state requirements, and to reduce
state/Federal regulatory redundancy. This includes building expertise to effectively
collaborate and negotiate in the early and later stages of energy development, and
conducting needed monitoring and modeling to assess impacts and develop guidance, as
related to energy development.
• (-$17,000.0) This reduction reflects a shift in grant authority used to fund the particulate
matter (PM) monitoring network from Section 103 of the Clean Air Act to Section 105
and also reflects the fact that the PM network is beyond the demonstration phase and is
now an operational system. Section 105 grants fund state or local air planning agencies
to implement and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and require a
40% match from recipients. The Section 103 authority is specifically for research and
demonstration efforts and has no matching requirement. This also reflects the net
change including restoration of the FY 2008 Omnibus 1.56% rescission. All priority
activities in this program can be funded within base resources.
731
-------
• (-$14,645.0) This reduction reflects substantial progress that has been made in attaining
the NAAQS for lead and carbon monoxide (CO). State efforts are now focused on
maintaining compliance with the lead and CO NAAQS and therefore funding for these
activities reflects this shift. The federal motor vehicle control program and existing state
and local programs will maintain carbon monoxide at levels meeting NAAQS. In
addition, new national programs, such as CAIR, will reduce SO2 and NOx as part of the
program for reducing particulate emissions and the implementation of these programs
will allow states to leverage existing resources to maximize cost-effectiveness of their
efforts. This also reflects the net change including restoration of the FY 2008 Omnibus
1.56% rescission. All priority activities in this program can be funded within base
resources.
Statutory Authority:
CAA, Sections 103, 105, and 106.
732
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$5,710.3
$5,710.3
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,099.0
$5,099.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,019.0
$5,019.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$5,099.0
$5,099.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$80.0
$80.0
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 as well as other asbestos
regulations such as the Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule.8 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, 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. States receiving grants for the PCB program and for
non-waiver asbestos programs must contribute 25 percent of the total cost of the grant. In FY
2009, EPA plans to continue to incorporate technology such as the use of portable personal
computers to improve efficiencies of the inspection process.
8 In July, 1989, EPA promulgated the Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule (40 CFR 763 Subpart 1). The 1989 EPA
rule banned the U.S. manufacture, importation, processing, or distribution in commerce of many asbestos-containing
product categories. The rule was vacated and remanded by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991. Six
product categories remained banned. The six asbestos-containing product categories that are still subject to the
asbestos ban include: 1) corrugated paper, 2) roll-board, 3) commercial paper, 4) specialty paper, 5) flooring felt
and 6) new uses of asbestos.
733
-------
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, 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 considering transitioning the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance program measures from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA strategic
architecture.
Performance Targets:
Work under this program supports EPA's objective to achieve environmental protection through
compliance. Currently, there are no performance measures for this specific Program.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$80.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
Statutory Authority:
TSCA.
734
-------
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Objective(s): Healthier Outdoor Air
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal Assistance
Grants
Total Budget Authority / Obligations
Total Workyears
FY 2007
Actuals
$11,840.5
$11,840.5
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,940.0
$10,940.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,769.0
$10,769.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$13,300.0
$13,300.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,531.0
$2,531.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
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.
In addition, in FY 2009, Tribes will build expertise to effectively collaborate and negotiate in the
early and later stages of energy development, and will conduct needed monitoring and modeling
to assess impacts and develop guidance, as related to energy development.
The Air Quality Grants and Permitting Program, PARTed in 2005, received a rating of
"ineffective." EPA has updated current grant allocation processes to ensure resources are
properly targeted and will continue to develop measures of permit program efficiency and make
program adjustments to ensure targets are met by December 2008.
735
-------
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 2007
Actual
Data
Avail
2008
FY 2007
Target
21
FY 2008
Target
26
FY 2009
Target
29
Units
Percentage
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$2,360.0) This funding increase supports Tribal work for effective and early
collaboration on energy projects to ensure the seamless integration of the Federal
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Tribal requirements, and to reduce
Tribal/Federal regulatory redundancy.
• (+$171.0) This total reflects restoration of the FY 2008 Omnibus 1.56% rescission and
will support working with tribes on monitoring and development of clean air plans for
Tribal programs.
Statutory Authority:
CAA, Sections 103 and 105.
736
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$61,569.8
$61,569.8
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$56,925.0
$56,925.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$56,037.0
$56,037.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$57,925.0
$57,925.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,888.0
$1,888.0
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
protection on Indian lands. The purpose of GAP is to support development of 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 provides technical assistance in
the development of multimedia programs to address environmental issues on Indian lands. GAP
grants help build the basic components of a Tribal environmental program which may include
planning, developing, and establishing the administrative, technical, legal, enforcement,
communication and outreach infrastructure. 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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, GAP grants will assist Tribal governments to build environmental capacity to assess
environmental conditions, utilize available federal and other information, and build
environmental programs tailored to their needs. Additional funds will allow 9 more tribes (for a
total of 526 tribes) to have access to an environmental presence in Indian country under EPA
programs. These grants also will be used to 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.
-------
Since FY 2005, EPA has improved program accountability by implementing a new database
system, the Objective 5.3 Reporting System, to standardize, centralize, and integrate regional
data and assign accountability for data quality. Currently, EPA is working to develop and deploy
the GAP Online work plan development and reporting system for improved data management
and real-time access to grant information. This new electronic system, in conjunction with the
updated guidance, helps emphasize outcome-based results.
The Tribal GAP program underwent its second PART assessment in 2007 and received an
overall rating of "moderately effective." As a result, EPA has set ambitious goals and revised
GAP performance measures to strengthen their relevance and accuracy.
In FY 2007, an independent program evaluation of the GAP program was conducted to
determine GAP's effectiveness in building Tribal environmental capacity. The findings
conclude that GAP is successful in building the foundation of environmental capacity among
tribes, as defined as capability in one or more of five indicator areas - technical, legal,
enforcement, administrative and communications. Although the extent of capacity building
varies across indicator areas for tribes, GAP funding is essential for tribes to achieve their
environmental goals. (See "Evaluation of the Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP)"
http://intranet.epa.gov/Program Evaluation Library/pdfs/GAPFinalReport.pdf for more
information.)
The Inspectors General of EPA and the Department of Interior jointly released a report in May
2007, "Tribal Successes, Protecting the Environmental and Natural Resources," which highlights
successful environmental protection practices by tribes. EPA's Tribal activities were positively
viewed in this report. In FY 2009, EPA will further assist tribes in establishing environmental
protection through collaboration, partnerships and other practices that lead to Tribal success.
(See "Tribal Success, Protecting the Environment and Natural Resources":
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070503-2007-P-00022JT.pdffor more information.)
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Tribes
conducting EPA
approved
environmental
monitoring and
assessment activities in
Indian country
(cumulative.)
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
21
FY 2009
Target
23
Units
Percent
Tribes
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Tribes with
an environmental
program (cumulative).
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
57
FY 2009
Target
60
Units
Percent
Tribes
738
-------
Measure
Type
Efficiency
Measure
Number of
environmental
programs implemented
in Indian Country per
million dollars.
FY 2007
Actual
14.1
FY 2007
Target
12.5
FY 2008
Target
12.5
FY 2009
Target
12.3
Units
Programs
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of Tribes
implementing federal
regulatory
environmental
programs in Indian
country (cumulative).
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
6
FY 2009
Target
7
Units
Percent
Tribes
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 2009, EPA will operate at an efficiency of approximately 14.2 programs per
million dollars. This efficiency level is consistent with the amount of funding received.
• In FY 2009, 526 Federally-recognized tribes and intertribal consortia, or 91 percent of a
universe of 572 eligible entities, will have access to an environmental presence.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$1,000.0) Additional funds will allow 9 more tribes (for a total of 526 tribes) to have
access to an environmental presence in Indian country under EPA programs.
• (+$888.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects
in addition to small technical changes such as realignment of IT, travel or other support
costs across programs.
Statutory Authority:
Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4368b (1992), as amended.
739
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$10,150.8
$10,150.8
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,891.0
$10,891.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$10,721.0
$10,721.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$10,891.0
$10,891.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$170.0
$170.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program is implemented by Federal and state
government agencies that oversee underground injection activities in order to prevent
contamination of underground sources of drinking water. Traditional underground injection is
the disposal of fluids beneath the earth's surface in porous rock formations through wells or
other similar conveyance systems. Billions of gallons of fluids are injected underground,
including 89% of hazardous waste that is land disposed and the practice is now being considered
for long-term storage of carbon dioxide.
When wells are properly sited, constructed, and operated, underground injection is an effective
method of managing 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 grants 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 2009 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.
740
-------
In 2009, states and EPA (where EPA directly implements) 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 and
received a rating of "adequate" from OMB. The program is working to develop an annual
performance measure and efficiency measure to demonstrate the protection of source water
quality.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percentage of
identified Class V
motor vehicle waste
disposal wells closed
or permitted.
FY 2007
Actual
85
FY 2007
Target
88
FY 2008
Target
90
FY 2009
Target
75*
Units
Percent of
Wells
*The target reduction in FY 2009 reflects increased regional efforts to identify Class V wells.
Permitting and closure efforts are not expected to decrease.
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.
FY 2007
Actual
76
FY 2007
Target
N/A
FY 2008
Target
96
FY 2009
Target
86
Units
Percent of
Wells
VV t/llo
Measure
Type
Output
Measure
Percent of population
served by CWSs that
will receive drinking
water that meets all
applicable health-based
drinking water
standards through
approaches incl.
effective treatment &
FY 2007
Actual
91.5
FY 2007
Target
94
FY 2008
Target
90
FY 2009
Target
90
Units
Percent of
Population
741
-------
Measure
Type
Measure
source water
protection.
FY 2007
Actual
FY 2007
Target
FY 2008
Target
FY 2009
Target
Units
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.
FY 2007
Actual
98
FY 2007
Target
N/A
FY 2008
Target
98
FY 2009
Target
98
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 demonstrate how the UIC program is helping to reduce risks to underground
sources of drinking water and protect public health.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$170.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program
projects.
Statutory Authority:
SDWA.
742
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$29,459.4
$29,459.4
0.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$22,274.0
$22,274.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,461.0
$2,461.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$22,800.0
$22,800.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$20,339.0
$20,339.0
0.0
Program Project Description:
EPA will make grants to states under Section 2007 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to support
core program activities as well as the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 leak prevention
activities. Major activities for these Underground Storage Tank (UST) categorical grants focus
on developing and maintaining state programs with sufficient authority and enforcement
capabilities to operate in lieu of the Federal program, and ensuring that owners and operators
routinely and correctly monitor all regulated tanks and piping in accordance with UST
regulations.9 EPA also will assist the states in implementing the EPAct provisions ensuring that
states are developing operator training by August 8, 2009, conducting on-site inspections on the
three-year cycle, prohibiting delivery to noncompliant tanks, and requiring either secondary
containment for new tank systems or financial responsibility for manufacturers and installers. 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.
There are approximately 630 thousand active USTs at approximately 238 thousand sites that are
regulated by the UST technical regulations under Subtitle I of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). These regulations seek to ensure that USTs are designed and operated in
a manner that prevents the tanks from leaking, and when leaks do occur, to detect and clean up
those leaks as soon as possible. Because of the size and diversity of the regulated community,
state authorities are in the best position to regulate USTs and to set priorities.10 States have been
the primary implementers of the UST program since its inception in 1984. In FY 2009, EPA will
make grants or cooperative agreements to states and tribes, and/or Intertribal Consortia for
activities authorized by the EPAct.n
y Refer to http://www.epa.gov/OUST /fedlaws /cfr.htm.
10 Refer to http://www.epa.gov/swerustl/overview.htm.
1J 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).
743
-------
FY 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
In FY 2009, EPA will continue to focus attention on the need to bring all UST systems into
compliance with release detection and release prevention requirements, and implement the
provisions of EPAct. States will continue to use the UST categorical grant funding to implement
their leak prevention and detection programs. Specifically with these UST categorical grants,
states will fund such activities as:12
• Mandatory inspections every three years for all underground storage tanks,
• Operator training,
• Prohibition of delivery for non-complying facilities,
• Secondary containment or financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and installers,
• Seeking state program approval to operate the UST program in lieu of the Federal
program,
• Approving specific technologies to detect leaks from tanks,
• Ensuring that tank owners and operators are complying with notification and other
requirements, and
• Equipment compatibility.
To help prevent future releases, EPA will continue to help tribes develop the capacity to
administer UST programs, such as providing funding to support training for Tribal staff and to
educate owners and operators in Indian Country about UST requirements.
The UST (prevention) program received an overall PART rating of "moderately effective" in
2006. As a component of the program's improvement plan, EPA worked with its state partners
to develop an efficiency measure of the annual confirmed releases per the annual underground
storage tanks leak prevention costs.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Increase the rate of
significant operational
compliance by 1% over
the previous year's
target.
FY 2007
Actual
63%
FY 2007
Target
67
FY 2008
Target
68
FY 2009
Target
69
Units
percent
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
No more than 10,000
confirmed releases per
year.
FY 2007
Actual
7,570
FY 2007
Target
<10,000
FY 2008
Target
<10,000
FY 2009
Target
<10,000
Units
UST releases
12 For more information on grant guidelines under EPAct see: http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws
744
-------
The program has set a challenging and ambitious goal of increasing significant operational
compliance (SOC) by 1 percent per year from the 2004 baseline of 64 percent. The program did
not meet the GPRA goal for the SOC rate in FY 2007 because some states inspected previously
uninspected facilities in response to the EPAct, which likely led to lower compliance rates.
The program also measures confirmed releases reported each year, with a goal of fewer than
10,000 releases each year. Between FYs 1999 and 2007, confirmed UST releases averaged
9,052. In FY 2007, there were 7,570 confirmed UST releases.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$20,339.0) This increase will support prevention activities required under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 within the STAG appropriation. This is a shift between the LUST
appropriation and the STAG appropriation designed to better engage the states. This
change also includes restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
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.
745
-------
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 2007
Actuals
$16,313. 7
$16,313.7
1.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$16,567.0
$16,567.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
0.0
FY 2009 Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$263.0
$263.0
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 monitoring, assessment, restoration, and management programs and to
conduct regulatory and protection work. 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 2009 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 2009 will assist states and tribes to develop and
enhance wetland programs. This program will help states and tribes protect vulnerable wetlands
and build capacity in the areas of measuring and achieving a net gain of wetlands.
In general, 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. Since FY 2006, the
WPDG Program has targeted projects that develop the regulatory and monitoring core elements.
In addition, EPA will be reporting 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
746
-------
implementation. The pilot is part of EPA's effort to strengthen state and Tribal capacity to
protect their wetlands.
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 2007: Three Years of Progress
Implementing the President's Goal (Council on Environmental Quality, April 2006), indicates
that since April 2004, 2,769,000 acres have been restored, created, protected or improved. For
more information consult http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/.
Performance Targets:
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
In partnership with the
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, states, and
tribes, achieve no net
loss of wetlands each
year under the Clean
Water Act Section 404
regulatory program
FY 2007
Actual
Data Lag
FY 2007
Target
No Net
Loss
FY 2008
Target
No Net
Loss
FY 2009
Target
No Net
Loss
Units
Acres
Measure
Type
Outcome
Measure
Working with partners,
achieve a net increase
of acres of wetlands
per year with
additional focus on
biological and
functional measures
and assessment of
wetland conditions.
(cumulative)
FY 2007
Actual
Data Lag
FY 2007
Target
100,000
FY 2008
Target
100,000
FY 2009
Target
100,000
Units
Acres/year
This program has not been reviewed under the PART process.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (+$263.0) This change reflects restoration of the 1.56% rescission to all program projects.
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
747
-------
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.
748
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Program Performance and Assessment
PART Improvement Plans - Spring Update Report 749
Supplemental PART Information 772
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 780
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER 794
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION 804
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS 813
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP 842
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES 851
Enabling Support Programs 851
NPM: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 851
NPM: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 853
NPM: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 855
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION 857
-------
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART Improvement Plans - Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10000218
10000220
PART Title
Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
(Civil)
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Improvement Plan
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.
Develop a new long-term outcome performance measure to assess the
impact of drinking water compliance improvements on public health.
Develop an efficiency measure that is more useful and meaningful for
tracking annual programmatic efficiency.
Improvement Plan
Continue to expand and improve use of statistically valid non-
compliance rates.
Develop meaningful baseline and targets for outcome oriented
performance measures, with particular emphasis on pounds of
pollutants reduced characterized for risk.
Target resources based on workload analysis and take into account
recommendations by the intra-agency Superfund Review completed in
April 2004.
Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)
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.
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
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
749
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10000222
10000224
10000226
PART Title
EPA Tribal General
Assistance Program
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Grants
Toxic Air Pollutants -
Regulations and Federal
Support
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)
Begin to transition from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA
Architecture; and incorporate in the next EPA Strategic Plan.
Improvement Plan
Implementation of the GAP tracking system proceeds. Regional training
will occur Sept-Dec. 2007. System evaluation and updated
recommendations are scheduled for Feb. 2008, with any necessary
system updates occurring in March-May 2008.
Implementation of the GAP tracking system proceeds. Regional training
will occur Sept-Dec. 2007. System evaluation and updated
recommendations are scheduled for Feb. 2008, with any necessary
system updates occurring in March-May 2008.
A long term measure for GAP related to solid waste issues and activities
is being developed.
Improvement Plan
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.
EPA will consider contracting for an independent evaluation of the
program that can serve as the basis for further improvements.
Improvement Plan
Increase funding for toxic air pollutant programs by $7 million in State
grants for monitoring to help fill data gaps.
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Completed
750
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10000228
10000234
PART Title
Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Cleanup
Program
Pesticide Registration
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Focus on maximizing programmatic net benefits and minimizing the cost
per deleterious health effect avoided.
Establish better performance measures, including an appropriate
efficiency measure.
Use the newly developed efficiency measure to demonstrate efficiency
improvements.
Improvement Plan
In response to initial findings that the program needed better long-term
outcome goals with adequate baselines and targets, the program has
been participating in an Office of Pesticide
Seek out regular independent evaluations and a systematic process to
review the program's strategic planning.
Programs initiative on performance indicators. The program has
proposed new measures for this reassessment.
Backlog characterization study and potential refinement of LUST
efficiency measure.
Improvement Plan
The Administration recommends maintaining funding at the 2004
President's Budget level adjusted for the annual pay increase.
The program will develop long-term risk-based outcome performance
measures that will supplement the existing long-term measures.
The program will also work on long-term outcome efficiency measures.
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
No action taken
Action Taken
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Completed
Completed
Completed
751
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10000236
PART Title
Pesticide Reregistration
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
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.
Executive leads working toward the development and refinement of
meaningful outcome oriented measures for each of the three mission
area in the new Strategic Plan
Improvement Plan
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.
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.
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.
Per the Agency targets develop and finalize appropriate regional
performance targets.
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, but
not completed
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Completed
752
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10000238
10001131
10001132
PART Title
Superfund Removal
EPA Acid Rain Program
Brownfields
Revitalization
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Brief staff on new Strategic Plan in order to incorporate stronger
alignment between Strategic Plan individual Performance Agreement
and Recognition System (PARS) agreements.
Executive leads working toward the development and refinements of
meaningful outcome-oriented measures for each of the three mission
areas in the new Strategic Plan
Improvement Plan
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.
Improvement Plan
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.
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.
Improvement Plan
Improve grantee use of electronic reporting systems to reduce data lags
in performance information.
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
753
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10001133
10001134
10001135
PART Title
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
EPA Enforcement of
Environmental Laws
(Criminal)
EPA Ecological Research
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Conduct regional program reviews to share and implement best
practices among regional offices that will improve the program's overall
performance and efficiency.
Complete performance measures that are under development including
a new cross-agency measure that tracks brownfields redevelopment.
Improvement Plan
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.
Improvement Plan
Developing a baseline and targets for the outcome measure, pounds of
pollutants reduced, that is characterized as to risk.
Created standardized definitions (completed) and merging databases
from within the agency to allow easier implementation and evaluation of
measures.
Developing baselines and targets to measure recidivism.
Improvement Plan
Refine the questions used in independent scientific reviews to improve
EPA's understanding of program utility and performance in relationship
to environmental outcomes.
Increase the transparency of budget, program, and performance
information in budget documents.
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
No action taken
754
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10001136
10001137
PART Title
EPA Environmental
Education
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
Research
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Develop and publish a revised multi-year research plan clearly
demonstrating how the program's research supports the EPA mission
and avoids duplication with other research programs.
Improvement Plan
The administration is continuing its recommendation to terminate the
program at EPA and rely on NSF programs to fulfill scientific education
initiatives.
The administration is continuing its recommendation to terminate the
program at EPA and rely on NSF programs to fulfill scientific education
initiatives.
Improvement Plan
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.
The program must develop at least one efficiency measure that
adequately reflects the efficiency of the program.
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.
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
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
No action taken
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
755
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10001138
PART Title
Pollution Prevention and
New Technologies
Research
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
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).
Assess the current efficiency measure, and revise it, if necessary, to
best capture the cost effectiveness of research activities.
Improvement Plan
Shift funding from this research program to another Environmental
Protection Agency pollution prevention program that has shown results
(see New Chemicals PART).
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.
Establish performance measures, including efficiency measures.
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.
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.
Assess the current efficiency measure, and revise it, if necessary, to
best capture the cost effectiveness of research activities.
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Completed
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
756
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10001139
10002272
PART Title
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
Corrective Action
Alaska Native Village
Water Infrastructure
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Implement follow-up recommendations resulting from the Technology
for Sustainability Subcommittee Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
review. Follow up actions are those actions committed to in the Pollution
Prevention and New Technologies Research Assessment program's
formal response to the BOSC
Improvement Plan
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.
Program should establish appropriate efficiency measures to adequately
track program efficiency over time.
Improvement Plan
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.
Develop an annual programmatic efficiency measure, which managers
will find useful for improving operational performance of the program.
No action taken
Action Taken
Completed
Completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
No action taken
757
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10002274
10002276
10002278
PART Title
EPA Climate Change
Programs
Public Water System
Supervision Grant
Program
Underground Injection
Control Grant Program
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Improvement Plan
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.
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.
Improvement Plan
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.
Develop a new long-term outcome performance measure to assess the
impact of drinking water compliance improvements on public health.
Develop an efficiency measure that is more useful and meaningful for
tracking annual programmatic efficiency.
Improvement Plan
Develop an outcome-based annual performance measure and an
efficiency measure, which demonstrate the protection of source water
quality.
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.
Develop an efficiency measure that is more useful and meaningful for
tracking annual programmatic efficiency.
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
No action taken
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
No action taken
758
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10002280
10002282
10002284
PART Title
Endocrine Disrupters
U. S. -Mexico Border
Water Infrastructure
Mobile Source Air
Pollution Standards and
Certification
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Improvement Plan
Maintain funding at approximately the FY 2005 President's Budget level.
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.
By the end of CY 2007, collect data for first year of new contracts and
compare to baseline efficiency measures.
Improvement Plan
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.
Implement a new program requirement that detailed project schedules
be included in future subgrant agreements.
Implement program management controls that expedite project
completions.
Improvement Plan
Request $66 million for EPA's mobile source programs, $1.5 million
more than the 2005 President's Budget request.
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
Completed
Completed
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Completed
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
759
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10002286
10002288
10002290
PART Title
EPA Pesticide
Enforcement Grant
Program
EPA's Recycling, Waste
Minimization, and
Waste Management
Program
Stratospheric Ozone
Protection
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Begin collecting data to support two new efficiency measures - one long
and one short-term - to enable the program to measure further
efficiency improvements.
Improvement Plan
Work to develop appropriate outcome performance measures.
Develop targets and baselines.
Evaluate why cost effectiveness appears inversely proportional to
amount of Federal funding.
Improvement Plan
Develop an efficiency measure for the waste minimization component of
the RCRA base program.
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 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.
Improvement Plan
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.
Continue to support the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the
Montreal Protocol.
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
760
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10002292
10002426
PART Title
Superfund Remedial
Action
Pesticide Field Programs
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Continue to monitor progress to ensure that the program is on track to
meet goals.
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.
Program will develop a long-term performance measure and set
ambitious targets for reduced incidence of non-melanoma skin cancers.
Improvement Plan
Implement the recommendations of the Agency's 120-day study on
management of the Superfund program.
Modernize the program's data repository (CERCLIS) to ensure accurate
and complete information on program performance and financial
management.
Validate the reporting method for performance data and develop a new
Superfund cleanup efficiency measure.
Improvement Plan
Include a $1 million reduction in funding for the Field Programs WQ
program in the FY 2006 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.
Make the Field Programs budgeting more transparent and more clearly
link to adequate and relevant program-specific measures.
Develop and implement annual goals and efficiency measures and
continue development of baselines and targets for long-term outcome
measures for all Field Programs.
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Completed
Completed
Completed
761
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10004301
PART Title
Drinking Water
Protection Program
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
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.
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.
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.
Executive leads working toward the development and refinement of
meaningful outcome oriented measures for each of the three mission
areas in the new Strategic Plan
Improvement Plan
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.
Implementing data quality review recommendations to improve the
overall quality of the data in EPA's drinking water compliance reporting
system.
The program is developing an efficiency measure that is more useful
and meaningful for tracking annual programmatic efficiency.
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
762
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10004302
10004303
10004304
10004305
PART Title
Chesapeake Bay
Program
Underground Storage
Tank Program
Pollution Prevention
Program
Land Protection and
Restoration Research
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Improvement Plan
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.
Developing a comprehensive implementation strategy that is
coordinated between program partners and accurately accounts for
available resources.
Promoting and tracking implementation of the most cost effective
restoration activities to maximize water quality improvements.
Improvement Plan
Underground Storage Tanks Improvement Plan
Improvement Plan
Evaluate Science Advisory Board Report recommendations for improving
performance measures to better demonstrate P2 results.
Identifying and reducing barriers associated with core EPA activities that
limit implementation of pollution prevention practices by industry.
Developing additional P2 Program efficiency measures to expand the
portion of the program's resources that are addressed.
Fully implement Grant Trak and P2 State Reporting System. Obtain
consistent 2007 results from Regions.
Improvement Plan
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
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
763
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10004306
10004307
PART Title
Water Quality Research
Global Change Research
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Develop and implement a protocol for more frequent review and use of
financial and performance tracking data to improve budget-performance
integration.
Develop a new efficiency measure that captures the cost effectiveness of
research activities.
Improvement Plan
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.
Developing and implementing a protocol for more frequent review and
use of financial and performance tracking data to improve budget and
performance integration.
Develop a new outcome efficiency measure that captures the cost
effectiveness of research activities.
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.
Improvement Plan
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.
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
764
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10004308
10004370
10004371
PART Title
Human Health Risk
Assessment Program
Ocean, Coastal, and
Estuary Protection
Drinking Water
Research
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Develop and implement a protocol for more frequent review and use of
financial and performance tracking data to improve budget-performance
integration.
Improvement Plan
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.
Investigate alternative approaches for measuring progress related to
providing timely, high quality scientific assessments.
Improvement Plan
Develop an annual performance measure for the Ocean Dumping
Program.
Develop an additional performance measure for non-estuary program
activities.
Developing more ambitious targets for the National Estuary Program's
annual and long term measures on habitat acres protected and restored.
Improvement Plan
Develop baselines and targets for all long term and annual performance
measures. These will allow the program to set quantitative goals and
assess progress through time.
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
765
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10004372
10004373
PART Title
EPA Support for
Cleanup of Federal
Facilities
EPA Human Health
Research
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Develop a performance measure which tracks the efficiency with which
the program delivers its services to its primary client, the EPA Office of
Water.
Improve oversight of non-grant partners and require non-grant partners
to work towards the annual and long term goals of the program.
Assess the current efficiency measure, and revise it, if necessary, to
best capture the cost effectiveness of research activities.
Improvement Plan
Work with other Federal agencies to support attainment of long-term
environmental and human health goals.
Conduct one evaluation on an aspect of the program to identify areas
and means for program improvements.
Explore with DOE and DOD the development of cross-program
revitalization measures.
Work with Fed. Fac. to evaluate their progress toward achieving
environmental goals.
Improve program management
Improvement Plan
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.
Develop ambitious long-term performance targets that clearly define
what outcomes would represent a successful program.
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Completed
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Completed
Completed
766
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10004374
10004375
PART Title
EPA Indoor Air Quality
EPA Lead-Based Paint
Risk Reduction Program
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
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.
Implement follow-up recommendations resulting from the Human Health
Subcommittee Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) mid-cycle review.
Follow up actions are those actions committed to in the Human Health
Research program's formal response to the BOSC.
Establish formal baselines for the program's BOSC-informed long-term
measures at the next comprehensive BOSC review.
Increase the transparency of budget, program, and performance
information in budget documents.
Improvement Plan
Link budget requests more explicitly to accomplishment of performance
goals, specifically by stipulating how adjustments to resource levels
would impact performance.
Improve transparency by making State radon grantee performance data
available to the public via a website or other easily accessible means.
Use efficiency measures to demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost
effectiveness in achieving program goals.
Improvement Plan
Develop and implement a method of measuring the impacts of the
program's outreach and education efforts.
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
No action taken
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
767
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10004376
10004377
PART Title
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and
Regional Haze Programs
Air Quality Grants and
Permitting
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
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.
Improve the linkage between program funding and the associated
contributions towards progress in achieving program goals, especially
for program grant and contractor funding.
Refine/Improve measures used in State Grant Reporting Template to
improve accountability of program partners for achievement of program
goals.
Further improve results reporting from program partners.
Improvement Plan
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.
Improve the linkage between program funding and the associated
contributions towards progress in achieving program goals.
Develop at least one efficiency measure that adequately reflects
program efficiency.
Improvement Plan
Develop at least one efficiency measure that adequately reflects
program efficiency.
Completed
Completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
768
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10004378
10004379
PART Title
EPA Oil Spill Control
Water Pollution Control
Grants
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Develop a measure that assesses the State permitting programs'
quality, efficiency, and compliance.
Develop policy and criteria for transitioning the fine particulate 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.
Improvement Plan
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 a forum for sharing and implementing best practices among
regional offices that will improve the program's overall performance and
efficiency.
Improvement Plan
Target additional program funding to States implementing probabilistic
monitoring activities in support of the national probabilistic monitoring
survey.
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
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Completed
769
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10004380
10009010
10009011
10009012
PART Title
Surface Water
Protection
EPA Great Lakes
Program
EPA Radiation
Protection Program
EPA Pesticides and
Toxics Research
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Provide incentives for States to implement or improve their permit fee
programs, increasing the resources available for water quality programs.
Improvement Plan
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
2011.
Improvement Plan
By the end of September, the program will present and analysis of
major radiological monitoring activities at EPA and other federal
agencies, exploring complementary efficiencies and potential
redundancies.
Improvement Plan
By the end of September, the program will present an analysis of major
radiological monitoring activity at EPA and other Federal agencies,
exploring complementary efficiencies and potential redundancies.
Improvement Plan
Develop a formal response to the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
independent expert review report, address action items, and make
progress toward long-term and annual targets.
Assess the current efficiency measure and revise it, if necessary, to best
capture the cost effectiveness of research activities.
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
Action Taken
No action taken
Action Taken
No action taken
Action Taken
No action taken
Action taken, but
not completed
770
-------
PART Improvement Plans- Spring Update Report
PART
Code
10009064
PART Title
EPA Chemical Risk
Review and Reduction
Year of
Assessment
2007 SPR
Improvement Plans
Develop a system to utilize quarterly performance measurement
reporting to improve program performance rather than solely revising
annual and long-term plans.
Develop a system to utilize quarterly performance measurement
reporting to improve program performance rather than solely revising
annual and long-term plans.
Improvement Plan
Program will develop a biomonitoring performance measure with
NHANES data from the Center for Disease Control or other
biomonitoring data (NATA) for chemicals of concern.
Risk Screening Environmental Model will be updated annually to reflect
updated TRI data to ensure performance measures are updated within 2
years that rely on TRI data.
Develop long-term and annual performance measures to reflect risk-
based recommendations for HPV Chemicals
No action taken
No action taken
Action Taken
No action taken
Action taken, but
not completed
Action taken, but
not completed
771
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Supplemental PART Information
PART Measures
Year Data
Available
Supplemental PART Information
Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Long-Term Performance Measure
Elimination of U.S. consumption of Class II Ozone Depleting
substances measured in tons/yr. of Ozone Depleting Potential (OOP).
Estimated future premature lung cancer deaths prevented annually
through lowered radon exposure.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmcte) of greenhouse gas in
the building sector.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas in
the industry sector.
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas
reductions in the transportation sector.
Millions of tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) reduced since 2000 from
mobile sources.
Millions of tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) reduced since
2000 from mobile sources.
Percent improvement in visibility on 20% worst days, on average for all
eastern Class I areas.
Percent of change in number of chronically acidic waterbodies in acid
sensitive regions.
Percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine
particulate 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)
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.
Progress in assessing the linkage between health impacts and air
pollutant sources and reducing the uncertainties that impede the
FY2010
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2010
FY2010
FY2018
FY2030
FY2015
FY2015
None
FY2010
FY2010
UD
772
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Supplemental PART Information
PART Measures
Long-Term Performance Measure
100% percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes will have access to
drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
CWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level ($billions/yr)
DWSRF Long-Term Revolving Level ($billions/yr)
Indep. Exp. Rev. Panel summary score on tool designed to measure the
use of ORD data, tools, and technologies for key decisions leading to
scientifically-sound 6 Year Review Decisions made by OW
Indep. Exp. Rev. Panel summary score on tool designed to measure the
use of ORD data, tools, and technologies for key decisions leading to
scientifically-sound CCL decisions made by the OW
National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic
Year Data
Available
understanding and usefuleness of these linkages.
Progress toward reducing uncertainty in the science that supports
standard setting and air quality management decisions.
Reductions in melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers, measured by
millions of skin cancer cases avoided (melanoma and nonmelanoma).
Tons of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) since 2000 from mobile
sources.
Tons of sulfur dioxide emissions reduced from electric power
generating sources.
Annual Performance Measure
Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air pollutant
sources based on the risk they pose to human health.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Percent reduction in time (days) per certificate approval for large
engines (nonroad Compression Ignition , Heavy duty gas and diesel
engines)
Tons of pollutants (VOC, NOX, PM, CO) reduced per total emission
reduction dollars spent.
Tons of toxicity-wieghted (for cancer and noncancer risk) emissions
reduced per total cost ($).
Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water
UD
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
70
FY2012
UD
UD
FY2011
FY2011
FY2018
UD
UD
FY2011
773
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Supplemental PART Information
PART Measures
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
Number of waterbodies protected per million dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided (under development)
Number of waterbodies restored or improved per million dollars of
Year Data
Available
ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale).
Number of baseline monitoring stations showing improved water
quality in tribal waters.
Number of waterbodies identified by States (in 2000 or subsequent
years) as being primarily NPS-impaired that are partially or fully
restored.
Number of waterbody segments identified in 2002 as not attaining
standards, where water quality standards are now fully attained.
Percent of Alaska population served by public water systems in
compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory requirements.
Percent of community water systems for which minimized risk to public
health through source water protection is achieved.
Percent of homes on tribal lands lacking access to basic sanitation.
Percent of homes on tribal lands lacking access to safe drinking water.
Percentage of WQRP publications in high impact journals.
Percentage of WQRP publications rated as highly cited publications.
Section 319 funds ($ million) expended per partially or fully restored
waterbody.
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.
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
None
None
FY2012
FY2011
UD
UD
FY2012
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
774
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Supplemental PART Information
PART Measures
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).
Gallons of oil spilled to navigable waters by facilities subject to the
Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations.
Increase the number of cleanups that meet state risk-based standards for
human exposure and groundwater migration on Indian County.
Percent of all FRP facilities inspected (and presumed then to be in
compliance).
Percentage of Land publications in high impact journals.
Percentage of Land publications rated as highly cited publications.
Total Superfund-lead removal actions completed.
Total voluntary removal actions, overseen by EPA, completed.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Cleanups complete (3-year rolling average) per total cleanup dollars.
Number of annual confirmed UST releases per federal, state and
territorial costs.
Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Long-Term Performance Measure
% 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
Year Data
Available
FY2011
CWSRF assistance provided (under development)
People receiving drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
standards per million dollars spent to manage the national drinking
water program.
Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration
Long-Term Performance Measure
Acres of land ready for re-use at Superfund sites.
Federal Facility Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater under
control (exposure pathways eliminated or potential exposures under
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
None
None
FY2011
FY2011
UD
UD
3.5
775
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Supplemental PART Information
PART Measures
Year Data
Available
% of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which ORD's
characterization of aggregate/cumulative risk is cited as supporting a
decision to move away from or to apply default risk assessment
assumptions
Acres protected or restored in NEP study areas, (incremental)
Assessed or cleaned Brownfields properties redeveloped.
Average cost and average time to produce or update an Endangered
Species Bulletin
By 2012, provide safe drinking water to 25% of homes in the U.S.
Mexico border area that lacked access to safe drinking water in 2003.
By 2012, provide wastewater sanitation to 25% of homes in the U.S.
Mexico border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003.
Cumulative number of chemicals for which proposed values for Acute
Exposure Guidelines Levels (AEGL) have been developed.
Cumulative reduction in the production adjusted risk based score of
releases and transfers of toxic chemicals from manufacturing facilities.
Cumulative reduction in the production-adjusted risk-based score of
releases and transfers of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals
from manufacturing facilities.
Determination of the extent of the impact of endocrine disrupters on
humans, wildlife, and the environment to better inform the federal and
scientific communities.
Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes by preventing
water pollution and protecting aquatic systems.
Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin which are
restored and de-listed.
Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within Areas of
Concern.
Number of cases of children (aged 1-5 years) with elevated blood lead
levels (>10ug/dl)
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.
Percent of Dissolved Oxygen goal of 100% standards attainment
achieved, based on annual monitoring from the previous calendar year
5.5
FY2011
UD
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
UD
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
FY2010
FY2012
FY2011
776
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Supplemental PART Information
PART Measures
Percent of submerged Aquatic Vegetation goal of 185,000 acres
achieved, based on annual monitoring from previous goal.
Percentage of Global publications in high impact journals.
Percentage of Global publications rated as highly cited publications.
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.
Percentage of regulatory decisions in which decision-makers used
HHRA peer-reviewed health assessments.
Reduce the number of currently exceeded water quality standards met in
shared and transboundary surface waters.
Reduced cost per pesticide occupational incident avoided
Reduction in PFOA, PFOA precursors, and related higher homologue
chemicals in facility emissions by PFOA Stewardship program
participants.
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
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.
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
Utility of ORD's causal diagnosis tools and methods for States, tribes,
and relevant EPA offices to determine causes of ecological degradation
and achieve positive environmental outcomes.
Utility of ORD's environmental forecasting tools and methods for
Year Data
Available
and the preceding 2 years.
Percent of agricultural watersheds that exceeds EPA aquatic life
benchmarks for two key pesticides of concern.
Percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that
do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the
environment.
FY2011
FY2011
FY2011
24.6
23
16.5
None
FY2012
FY2011
FY2010
UD
None
>60
Exceeds Exp
Exceeds Exp
777
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Supplemental PART Information
PART Measures
Year Data
Available
States, tribes, and relevant EPA offices to forecast the ecological
impacts of various actions and achieve environmental outcomes.
Utility of ORD's environmental restoration and services tools and Exceeds Exp
methods for States, tribes, and relevant EPA offices to protect and
restore ecological condition and services.
Utility of ORD's methods and models for risk assessors and risk None
managers to evaluate the effectiveness of public health outcomes.
Utility of ORD's methods, model, and data for risk assessors/risk None
managers to characterize aggregate and cumulative risk in order to
manage risk of humans exposed to multiple environmental stressors.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for OPPTS and other None
organizations to make decisions related to products of biotechnology.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for OPPTS and other None
organizations to make probabilistic risk assessments to protect natural
populations of birds, fish, other wildlife, and non-target plants
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for risk assessors and risk None
managers to characterize and provide adequate protection for
susceptible subpopulations.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data for risk assessors and risk None
managers to use mechanistic (mode of action) information to reduce
uncertainty in risk assessment.
Utility of ORD's methods, models, and data under SP2's long-term goal None
one for OPPTS and other organizations.
Efficiency Performance Measure
Acres of brownfields made ready for reuse per million dollars. UD
Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
Long-Term Performance Measure
Change in behavior to use Improved management practices, (criminal FY 2007
enf)
Cumulative business, institutional and government costs reduced by P2 FY2011
program participants
Cumulative pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program FY2011
participants
Number of states adopting or aligning Guidelines for Learning curricula FY 2008
778
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Supplemental PART Information
PART Measures
State) per million
and utilization of resources.
Number of enforcement actions taken (Federal
dollars of cost (Federal + State), (pest enf)
Pounds of pollutant reduction per FTE. (criminal enf)
Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated per FTE. (civil enf)
Ratio of number of students/teachers that have improved environmental
knowledge per total dollars expended.
Year Data
Available
and standards to state academic standards or number of states
developing new env edu 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.
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, (civil enf)
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, (criminal enf)
Reduction in recidivism, (criminal enf)
Annual Performance Measure
Number of NNEMS fellows who pursue environmental careers.
Change in behavior to use Improved Management practices, (criminal
enf)
Percent of compliance actions taken as a result of
inspection/enforcement, (pest, enf)
Percent of violators committing subsequent violations, (pest, enf)
Pollutant impact.
Pounds of pollution reduced, treated or eliminated, (criminal enf)
Reduction in recidivism (criminal enf).
Efficiency Performance Measure
Increase the efficiency of reducing, treating, or eliminating pollutants
and generating enforcement outcomes through the effective allocation
FY 2008
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY2008
FY 2007
FY 2007
2009
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2007
FY 2008
779
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 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 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.
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days with
Air Quality Index (AQI) values over 100 since 2003,
weighted by population and AQI value.
17
39
21
Data Avail
2008
26
29
Percentage
Background: Baseline was zero in 2003.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
780
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM-10
In 2009 Tons of particulate matter (PM-10) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
In 2008 Tons of particulate matter (PM-10) reduced since 2000 from mobile sources.
In 2007 Tons of particulate 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).
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures _ Target _ Actual _ Target _ Actual _ Target _ Target _ Unit _
Tons of PM-10 Reduced since 2000 from Mobile Sources 74,594 74,594 87,026 99,458 110,190 Tons
Background: 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
6 13, 000 tons.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy Ozone Levels - 8 Hour
In 2009 Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of ozone in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline.
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).
Performance Measures
Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted
FY 2006
Target Actual
5 7
FY 2007
Target Actual
Data Avail
2008
FY 2008
Target
8
FY 2009
Target
10
Unit
Percentage
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 781
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
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
FY
Target
1.01 M
1.03 M
2.03 M
2006
Actual
1.01 M
1.03 M
2.03
FY
Target
1.18M
1.20M
2.37M
2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Data Avail
2008
Data Avail
2008
FY 2008
Target
1.35M
1.37M
2.71M
FY 2009
Target
1.52M
1.54M
3.05M
Unit
Tons
Tons
Tons
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. In FY 2005,
the Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline year for mobile source emissions. The 2000 baseline was 7.7M tons for mobile source VOC emissions,
and 11.8M tons for mobile source NOx emissions. In FY 2005, the 2000 Mobile6 inventory is used as the baseline for mobile source emission. The
2000 baseline was 79.2M tons for mobile source CO emissions. While on-road CO emissions continue to decrease, there is an overall increase in
mobile source CO emissions due to a growth in nonroad CO.
Reduce Exposure to Unhealthy PM Levels - PM- 2.5
In 2009 Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine particulate matter (PM-2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003
baseline.
In 2008 Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of fine particulate 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 NAAQSfor 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).
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 782
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2006
Target Actual
2 7
73,460 73,460
FY 2007
Target Actual
3 Data Avail
2008
85,704 Data Avail
2008
FY 2008
Target
4
97,947
FY 2009
Target
5
110,890
Unit
Percentage
Tons
Background:
Acid Rain
In 2009
In 2009
In 2009
In 2008
In 2008
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. 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 613,000 tons.
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 7.5million tons from the 1980 baseline.
Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and total ambient nitrate concentrations 10% from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up through
2010 is 1990 monitored levels.
Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and total ambient sulfate concentrations 10% from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up through 2010
is 1990 monitored levels.
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 7.5million tons from the 1980 baseline.
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.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
783
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
In 2008 Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate concentrations 29% from 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 Reduce total annual average nitrogen deposition and ambient nitrate concentrations 5% from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up through 2010 is
1990 monitored levels.
In 2006 Reduce total annual average sulfur deposition and ambient sulfate concentrations 27% from baseline. Baseline for annual targets up through 2010 is
1990 monitored levels.
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Target
Unit
Tons of sulfur dioxide emissions from electric power
generation sources
Percent change in average nitrogen deposition and mean
total ambient nitrate concentrations.
Percent change in average sulfur deposition and mean
ambient sulfate concentrations.
7,000,000 8,000,000 7,500,000
No Target No Target 10
Established Established
No Target No Target 29
Established Established
Data Avail
2008
8,000,000 8,000,000 Tons Reduced
Data Avail
7009 Target No Target Percentage
Established Established
Data Avail
7009 Target No Target Percentage
Established 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
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
784
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Cumulative reduction in tons oftoxicity-weightedfor non-cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
In 2009 Cumulative reduction in tons oftoxicity-weightedfor cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
In 2008 Cumulative reduction in tons oftoxicity-weightedfor non-cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
In 2008 Cumulative reduction in tons oftoxicity-weightedfor cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
In 2007 Reduction in tons oftoxicity-weightedfor cancer and non-cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
In 2006 Reduction in tons oftoxicity-weightedfor cancer and non-cancer emissions of air toxics from 1993 baseline.
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target
Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity- 34 Data Avail 35 Data Avail 35 36
weighted (for cancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 2009 2009
1993 baseline.
Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity- 58 Data Avail 58 Data Avail 59 59
weighted (for noncancer risk) emissions of air toxics from 2009 2009
Unit
Percentage
Percentage
1993 baseline.
Background: 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. The baseline is in 1993. Air toxics emissions data are revised every three years to generate inventories for the National Emissions Inventory
(NEI), which replaced the National Toxics Inventory (NTI). In intervening years between updates of the NEI, the model EMS-HAP (Emissions
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
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
785
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2002 NEI was completed in fall of 2006 so there is a 4yr.
lag. 2005 NEI will be an improvement so we should have actuals in early 2009.
New Source Review
In 2009 Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application.
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.
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Percent of major NSR permits issued within one year of
receiving a complete permit application.
70
70
75
Data Avail
2008
78
78
Percentage
Background:
Title V
In 2009
In 2008
In 2007
In 2006
The baseline for NSR permits issued within one year of receiving a complete permit application is 61% in 2004.
Percent of significant and new Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
Percent of significant and new Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
Percent of significant and new Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
Percent of significant and new Title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
786
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
Percent of significant Title V operating permit revisions
issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit
application.
Percent of new Title V operating permits issued within 18
months of receiving a complete permit application.
FY
Target
91
83
2006
Actual
91
83
FY
Target
94
87
2007
Actual
Data Avail
2008
Data Avail
2008
FY 2008
Target
97
91
FY 2009
Target
100
95
Unit
Percentage
Percentage
Background: The 2004 baseline for significant title V operating permit revisions issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application is 100% and the
baseline for new title V operating permits issued within 18 months of receiving a complete permit application is 95%.
OBJECTIVE: HEALTHIER INDOOR AIR
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 2009 Additional people will be living in homes with healthier 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 healthier indoor air.
In 2006 850,000 additional people will be living in homes with healthier indoor air.
Performance Measures
Number of additional homes
radon reducing features
Number of people taking all
FY 2006
Target Actual
(new
and existing)
essential actions to
with
reduce
180:
,000
4,100,000
Data Avail
2008
Data Avail
FY 2007
Target Actual
190,000
No Target
Data Avail
2008
FY 2008
Target
225,000
No Target
FY 2009
Target
265,000
5,300,000
Unit
Homes
Number
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
787
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers. 2008 Established Established
Percent of public that is aware of the asthma program's >20 33 >20 Data Avail >20 >20 Percentage
media campaign. 2008
Additional health care professionals trained annually by 2000 3,582 2000 Data Avail 2000 2000 Number
EPA and its partner on the environmental management of 2008
asthma triggers.
Background: This performance measure includes EPA radon, and asthma work. By 2008, number of people living in homes built (new or existing) with radon
reducing features will be 225,000. The baseline for the performance measure was 1996 (107,000 homes). Annual Surveys are conducted by our
partners to gather information such as types of houses built, lot sizes, foundation designs, types of lumber used, types of doors and windows used. 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. Also, the surveys
gather information on the use of radon-resistant design features in new houses. Each year, the survey of building practices is typically mailed out to
home builders. The survey responses are analyzed, with respect to State market areas and Census 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-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 2009 Estimated annual number of schools establishing indoor air quality programs based on EPA's Tools for Schools guidance.
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.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 788
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Estimated annual number of schools establishing indoor 1200 1200 1100 . 1100 1000 Number
air quality programs based on EPA's Tools for Schools
guidance.
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 2009 Remaining US consumption of class II HCFCs below 9, 900 OOP-weighted metric tonnes (OOP MTs) .
In 2008 Remaining US consumption of class II HCFCs below 9, 900 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP MTs) .
In 2007 Remaining US consumption of class II HCFCs below 9, 900 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP MTs).
In 2006 Restrict domestic annual consumption of class II HCFCs below 9,906 ODP-weighted metric tonnes (ODP
production and import of newly produced class I CFCs and halons below 1 0, 000 ODP MTs.
FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target
Remaining US (
T^oto A\/"Ql1
Consumption of HCFCs in tons of Ozone <9,900 Data Avail <9,900 ~nno <9,900
MTs) and restrict domestic
FY 2009
Target Unit
<9,900 ODP MTs
exempted
Depleting Potential (ODP). 2008
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 789
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
Radiation
In 2009
Percentage of most populous US cities with a radiation air monitoring system, which will provide data to assist in protective action determinations.
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Percentage of most populous US cities with a RadNet
ambient radiation air monitoring system, which will
provide data to assist in protective action determinations.
Level of readiness of radiation program personnel and
assets to support federal radiological emergency response
and recovery operations.
Average time of availability of quality assured ambient
radiation air monitoring data during an emergency.
Time to approve site changes affecting waste
characterization at DOE waste generator sites to ensure
safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at WIPP.
65
75
67
78
80
80
87
83
85
85
90
90
1.9
30
1.9
33
1.3
40
1.3
43
1
46
53
Percentage
Percentage
Days
Percentage
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
790
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Level of readiness of national environmental radiological
laboratory capacity (measured as percentage of
laboratories adhering to EPA quality criteria for
emergency response and recovery decisions.
7
7
20
21
50
Percentage
Background: The baseline is 55%.
OBJECTIVE: REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS INTENSITY
By 2012, 160 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) of emissions will be reduced through EPA^s voluntary climate protection
programs.
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2009 Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas reductions in the building, industrial, and transportation sectors.
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.
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.
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of
greenhouse gas reductions in the buildings sector.
26.5
31.10
29.4
Data Avail
2008
32.4
35.5
MMTCE
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
791
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
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 2006
Target Actual
0.6 0.6
57.5 69.0
FY 2007
Target Actual
Data Avail
2008
Data Avail
616 2008
FY 2008
Target
1.5
67.7
FY 2009
Target
2.6
72.9
Unit
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 2012, provide sound science to support EPA's goal of clean air by conducting leading-edge research and developing a better
understanding and characterization of human health and environmental outcomes.
Research
Clean Air Research
In 2009 Increased use of clean air research program products.
In 2008 Increased use of clean air research program products
In 2007 Increased use ofparticulate matter research program products
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 792
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
In 2006 BY 2006, develop and report on new data on the effects of different PM sizes or components to improve understanding of the health risks associated
with short-term exposure to PM in healthy and select susceptible populations so that, by 2010, OAR has improved assessments of health risks to develop
PM standards that maximize protection of human health, as determined by independent expert review.
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Target
Unit
Integrated report on the health effects of different particle 1
sizes or particle components in healthy and select
susceptible subgroups. (Research)
Percentage of NAAQS program publications rated as
highly cited papers (Research)
Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air 10
pollutant sources based on the risk they pose to human
health. (Research)
Percent planned actions accomplished toward the long- 100
term goal of reducing uncertainty in the science that
support standard setting and air quality management
decisions. (Research)
Report
35.7 32.9 No Target 33.9
Established
10
94
30 No Target 50
Established
100
100
100
70
100
Report
Percent
Percent
Percent
Background: The program aims to make measurable progress in 1) assessing the linkage between health impacts and air pollutant sources and reducing the
uncertainties that impede the understanding and usefulness of these linkages, and 2) reducing uncertainty in the science that supports standard setting
and air quality management decisions. EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) rates the program on its progress periodically, and the program
responds to BOSC suggestions to ensure continued improvement. Additionally, the program aims to increase 1) the number of planned outputs
completed on time (a measure of timeliness); 2) the number of its papers deemed "highly cited" in bibliometric analyses (a measure of the quality and
use of ORD's research); and 3) the percentage of ORD-developed outputs appearing in the Office of Air and Radiation National Ambient Air Quality
Standard Staff Paper (a measure of the utility and use of ORD's research). The program is also working toward completion of a hierarchy of air pollutant
sources based on the risk they pose to human health.
GOAL 1: CLEAN AIR AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
793
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Increase 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 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.
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Percent of the population in Indian country served by 90 86.6 87 87 87 87 Percent
community water systems that receive drinking water that Population
meets all applicable health-based drinking water
standards (4: Ambient Conditions)
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 794
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
Percent of population served by CWSs that will receive
drinking water that meets all applicable health-based
drinking water standards through approaches incl.
effective treatment & source water protection. (4:
Ambient Conditions)
Fund utilization rate for the DWSRF. (IB: Service
Delivery)
Number of additional projects initiating operations. (0:
Indeterminate)
Percent of community water systems that have undergone
FY
Target
93
83.3
425
95
2006
Actual
89.4
86.9
399
94
FY
Target
94
85
433
95
2007
Actual
91.5
88
438
92
FY 2008
Target
90
86
440
95
FY 2009
Target
90
89
445
95
Unit
Percent
Population
Rate
Projects
Percent CWS
a sanitary survey within the past three years (five years
for outstanding performance.) (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov.
Activities)
Percentage of identified Class V motor vehicle waste
disposal wells closed or permitted. (1C: Fed/State/Tribal
Gov. Activities)
Percentage of Class I, II, and III wells that maintain
mechanical integrity without a failure that releases
contaminants to underground sources of drinking water.
(3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Percentage of prohibited Class IV and high-priority,
identified, potentially endangering Class V wells closed
or permitted in ground-water based source water areas. (3:
Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Percent of community water systems that meet all
applicable health-based standards through approaches that
include effective treatment and source water protection.
(1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
93.5
89.3
89
89
90
98
96
89.5
75
98
86
90
Wells
Wells
Wells
Percent
Systems
795
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Percent of person months during which community water 95 95 Percent CWS
systems provide drinking water that meets all applicable
health-based standards. (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
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 2009 Improve the quality of recreation waters.
In 2008 Improve the quality of recreation waters.
In 2008 Reduce public health risk and allow increased consumption offish and shellfish.
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.
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Percentage of women of childb earing age having mercury
levels in blood above the level of concern. (5: Exposure
or Body Burden)
Percent of state-monitored shellfish-growing acres
impacted by anthropogenic sources that are approved or
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
5.5
65-85
5.2
65-85
Percent of
Women
Percent Areas
796
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
conditionally approved for use. (4: Ambient Conditions)
Number ofwaterborne disease outbreaks attributable to
swimming in or other recreational contact with coastal
and Great Lakes waters measured as a 5-year average.
(5: Exposure or Body Burden)
Percent of days of beach season that coastal and Great
Lakes beaches monitored by State beach safety programs
are open and safe for swimming. (4: Ambient Conditions)
94
97
92.6
95.2
92.6
93
Outbreaks
Percent
Days/Season
Background: For shellfish consumption, 77% of assessed estuary square miles met this designated use. For days of beach season monitoring, Guam, American
Samoa, and the Northern Marianas were included for the first time in 2006. These territories have a higher percentage of beach season day closures
resulting in a lower percentage of days at the regional and national levels.
OBJECTIVE: PROTECT WATER QUALITY
Protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis and protect coastal and ocean waters.
Watershed Protection
In 2009 Use pollution prevention and restoration approaches to protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis.
Use pollution prevention and restoration approaches to protect the quality of rivers, lakes, and streams on a watershed basis.
In 2008
In 2007
In 2006
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.
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.
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
797
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2006
Performance Measures Target Actual
Number of waterbody segments identified by States in 924
2002 as not attaining standards, where water quality
standards are now fully attained (cumulative). (4:
Ambient Conditions)
Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF. (IB: Service 93.3 94.7
Delivery)
Percentage of all major publicly -owned treatment works
(POTWs) that comply with their permitted wastewater
discharge standards (4: Ambient Conditions)
Reduction in phosphorus loadings (millions of pounds). 4.5 11.8
(3 : Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Additional pounds (in millions) of reduction to total 8.5 14.50
nitrogen loadings. (3 : Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Additional tons of reduction to total sediment loadings. 700,000 1,200,000
(3 : Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Number of TMDLs that are established by States and 15,428 17,682
approved by EPA on schedule consistent with national
policy (cumulative).
(IB: Service Delivery)
Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits that are 95 96.4
scheduled to be reissued. (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov.
Activities)
Percentage of maj or dischargers in Significant 22.5 20 . 2
Noncompliance (SNC) at any time during the fiscal year.
(3 : Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Percentage of submissions of new or revised water quality 90. 9 89.1
standards from States and Territories that are approved by
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
FY 2007 FY 2008
Target Actual Target
1,166 1,409 1,550
93.4 96.7 93.5
86
4.5 Data Avail 4.5
Mid-2008
8.5 Data Avail 8.5
Mid-2008
700,000 Data Avail 700,000
Mid-2008
20,232 21,685 28,527
95 112 95
22.5 Data Avail 22.5
2008
85 85.6 87
FY 2009
Target Unit
1,660 Number of
Segments
93.7 Percent Rate
86 Percent
POTWs
4.5 Lbs in
Millions
8.5 Lbs in
Millions
700,000 Tons
31,587 TMDLs
95 Percent
Permits
22.5 Percent
Dischargers
83 Percent
Submissions
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
798
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
EPA. (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
Number of TMDLs that are established or approved by
EPA on a schedule consistent with national policy
(cummulative). (IB: Service Delivery)
Percentage of waters assessed using statistically valid
surveys. (IB: Service Delivery)
Percent of high priority EPA and state NPDES permits
that are reissued on schedule. (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov.
Activities)
% of States & 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 inprev stnds. (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov.
Activities)
Remove the specific causes ofwaterbody impairment
identified by states in 2002 (cumulative). (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds
nationwide using the watershed approach (cumulative).
(3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
20,275 22,648
54 54
95 98.5
66
66.1
25,274
54
95
67
26,844
54
104
66.1
33,828
65
95
68
36,941
65
95
68
5,075
64
TMDLs
Percent Waters
Percent
Permits
Percent
States/Terr.
Causes
Watersheds
Background: As of 2002 state reports 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.
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
799
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Coastal and Ocean Waters
In 2009 Improve National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally
In 2008 Improve National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic ecosystem health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale.)
In 2006 Improve ratings reported on the national "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report for: coastal wetlands loss by at least 0.2
point; contamination of sediments in coastal waters by at least 0.7 point; benthic quality by at least 0.5 point; & eutrophic condition by at least 1.2
point
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Percent of active dredged material ocean dumping sites
that will have achieved environmentally acceptable
conditions (as reflected in each site's management plan).
(3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
95
95
Percent 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 2009 Percent serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
In 2008 Percent serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
In 2007 Percent serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
800
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
Percent of serviceable rural Alaska homes with access to
drinking water supply and wastewater disposal. (3 :
Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
92 Data Avail
Late 2008
FY 2008
Target
94
FY 2009
Target
96
Unit
Percent Homes
Background: In 2003, 77% of serviceable rural Alaska homes had access to drinking water supply and wastewater disposal.
OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
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.
Research
Drinking Water Research
In 2009 Increased use of drinking water research products.
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.
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Six 100 94 100 100 100 100 Percent
Year Review decisions. (Research)
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 801
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
Contaminate Candidate List Decisions. (Research)
Background: The program aims to make measurable progress in 1) developing data, tools, and technologies to support scientifically sound Six Year Review
decisions; and 2) developing data, tools, and technologies to support scientifically sound Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) decisions. EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) rates the program on its progress periodically, and the program responds to BOSC suggestions to ensure continued
improvement. Additionally, the program aims to increase 1) the number of planned outputs completed on time (a measure of timeliness); and 2) the
number of its papers actually used by EPA's Office of Water in Six Year Review and CCL decisions (a measure of the quality and use of ORD's
research).
Water Quality Research
In 2009 Increased use of water quality research products.
In 2008 Increased use of water quality research products
In 2007 Increased use of water quality research products
In 2006 By 2006, provide demonstrations ofbioassessment 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.
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long- 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
term goal #1) delivered (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long- 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
term goal #2) delivered (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs (in support of WQRP long- 100 92 100 100 100 100 Percent
term goal #3) delivered (Research)
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 802
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Background: The program aims to make measurable progress in 1) supporting water quality criteria development; 2) developing diagnostic tools that aid in
establishing causal relationships between pollution and water quality impairments; and 3) providing information that supports sustainable watershed
management practices through the demonstration of technologies, the application of decision tools and for forecasting restoration and benefits of
management practices. Research under these three rubrics is designed to lead to the promulgation of protective standards, the identification of
contaminant contributions to impaired waters, and the tools needed to restore and protect the nation's waters. EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC) rates the program on its progress periodically, and the program responds to BOSC suggestions to ensure continued improvement. Additionally,
the program aims to increase 1) the number of planned outputs completed on time (a measure of timeliness); and 2) the number of its papers deemed
"highly cited" and of "high impact" in bibliometric analyses (a measure of the quality and use of ORD's research).
GOAL 2: CLEAN AND SAFE WATER
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 803
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 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 2009 Increase use of coal combustion ash rather than disposing of it.
In 2008 Divert 35% (87.3 million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita generation ofRCRA municipal solid
waste at 4.5 pounds per day.
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 ofRCRA municipal
solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day.
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.
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 804
-------
In 2006
In 2006
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Divert 33.4% (83.1 million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita generation ofRCRA municipal
solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day.
Divert 33.4% (83.1 million tons) of municipal solid waste from land filling and combustion, and maintain per capita generation ofRCRA municipal
solid waste at 4.5 pounds per day.
FY 2006
Performance Measures Target Actual
Percentage of coal combustion ash that is used instead of
disposed. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste. (0: 4.5 4.6
Indeterminate)
Number of closed, cleaned up, or upgraded open dumps
in Indian Country or on other tribal lands. (1C:
Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
Number of tribes covered by an integrated solid waste
management plan. (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
FY
Target
1.8
4.5
30
27
2007
Actual
Data Avail
2009
Data Avail
2009
107
28
FY 2008
Target
1.8
4.5
30
26
FY 2009
Target
1.8
4.5
27
16
Unit
percent
Ibs. MSW
open dumps
tribes
Background: An analysis conducted at the end of FY 2006 shows approximately 4.6 Ibs of MSW per person daily generation. 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 2009 Reduce releases to the environment by managing hazardous wastes and petroleum products properly.
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.
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
805
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Number of hazardous waste facilities with new controls or 100 facilities
updated controls. (2: Regulated Party Activities)
No more than 10,000 confirmed releases per year. (0: < 10,000 8,361 < 10,000 7,570 < 10,000 < 10,000 UST releases
Indeterminate)
Increase the rate of significant operational compliance by 66 62 67 63 68 69 percent
1% over the previous year's target. (2: Regulated Party
Activities)
Background: Since FY 2004, states and regional offices have 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. By 2011, 500 RCRA
hazardous waste facilities will have initial approved controls or upgraded controls. Although the universe of facilities requiring these controls will be
reassessed in 2009, this number is currently estimated at 820.
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 2009 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 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.
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 806
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Refer to DOJ, settle, or write off 100% of 'Statute of 100 100 100 98 100 100 Percent
Limitations (SOLs) cases for SF sites with total
unaddressedpast costs equal to or greater than $200,000
and report value of costs recovered. (2: Regulated Party
Activities)
Background: In FY 98 the Agency will have addressed 100% of Cost Recovery at all NPL & non-NPL sites with total past costs equal or greater than $200,000.
Superfund Potentially Responsible Party Participat
In 2009 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 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 2006 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.
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 807
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Percentage of Superfund sites at which settlement or 90 100 95 98 95 95 Percent
enforcement action taken before the start ofRA. (2:
Regulated Party Activities)
Background: In FY 98 approximately 70% of new remedial work at NPL sites (excluding Federal facilities) was initiated by private parties. In FY2003, a settlement
was reached or an enforcement action was taken with non-Federal PRPs before the start of the remedial action at approximately 90 percent of Superfund
sites.
Assess and Cleanup Contaminated Land
In 2009 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 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.
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Number of cleanups completed that meet state risk-based
standards for human exposure and groundwater
migration. (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Number of cleanups completed that meet risk-based
13,600
30
14,493
43
13,000
30
13,862
54
13,000
30
13,000
30
cleanups
cleanups
standards for human exposure and groundwater migration
in Indian Country. (2: Regulated Party Activities)
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 808
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
Superfund final site assessment decisions completed. (2:
Regulated Party Activities)
Annual number of Superfund sites with remedy
construction completed. (0: Indeterminate)
Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under
control. (0: Indeterminate)
Superfund sites with contaminated groundwater
migration under control. (0: Indeterminate)
Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where all
FY
Target
419
40
10
10
51
2006
Actual
518
40
34
21
55
FY
Target
350
24
10
10
56
2007
Actual
395
24
13
19
59
FY 2008
Target
400
30
10
15
60
FY 2009
Target
400
35
10
15
64
Unit
assessments
completions
sites
sites
sites
remedies have completed construction. (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Number of Federal Facility Superfund sites where the
final remedial decision for contaminants at the site has
been determined. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Number of RCRA facilities with final remedies
constructed. (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Number of RCRA facilities with human exposures under
control. (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Number of RCRA facilities with migration of
contaminated groundwater under control. (2: Regulated
Party Activities)
Number of Superfund sites ready for anticipated use site-
wide. (4: Ambient Conditions)
61
70
76
71
81
30
64
30
85
100
60
60
30
remedies
facilities
facilities
facilities
sites
Background: Through the end of FY 2005, a total of 38,770 final assessment decisions had been made out of a universe of 44,700 potentially hazardous waste sites
evaluated by EPA. Additionally, Superfund controlled human exposures at 1,266 of 1,543 eligible NPL sites and controlled groundwater migration at
937 of 1,381 eligible NPL sites, completed construction at 966 of 1,498 eligible NPL sites, and selected final remedies at 1,042 of 1,498 of the eligible
NPL sites. Of the 1,714 RCRA Corrective Action highest-priority facilities, 96% (1,649) had human exposures controlled and 78% (1,342) had
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
809
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
groundwater migration controlled through the end of FY 2005, reflecting the strong EPA/state partnership in this program. The new measures for RCRA
Corrective Action reflect a universe of 3,746 of the high National Corrective Action Prioritization System-ranked facilities, which was recently set.
Through FY2006, EPA has completed more than 75% (or 350,818) leaking underground storage tank cleanups. 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.
Prepare/Respond to Accidental/Intentional Release
In 2009 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 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.
Performance Measures
Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually. (2:
Regulated Party Activities)
Voluntary removal actions, overseen by EPA, completed.
(2: Regulated Party Activities)
Number of inspections and exercises conducted at oil
storage facilities that are required to have Facility
FY
Target
195
115
100
2006
Actual
157
93
345
FY
Target
195
120
200
2007
Actual
200
151
335
FY 2008
Target
195
125
250
FY 2009
Target
195
130
250
Unit
removals
removals
inspections/
exercises
Percentage of inspected facilities subject to Spill
Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)
regulations found to be in compliance. (2: Regulated
Party Activities)
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
100
50
53
40
55
58
percent
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
810
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
Percentage of inspected facilities subject to Facility
FY 2006
Target Actual
100 71
FY 2007
Target Actual
75 67
FY 2008
Target
78
FY 2009
Target
82
Unit
percent
Response Plan (FRP) regulations found to be in
compliance. (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Score in annual Core Emergency Response assessment.
(1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
55
96
65
75
percent
Background: Between 2000 and 2005 EPA completed an average 209 Superfund removal response actions and an average 97 removal actions were completed by
responsible parties voluntarily (i.e., undertaken without EPA enforcement action). In FY 2004, the compliance rate of all facilities subject to FRP
regulations (estimated number of facilities is 4,200) was 50% and the compliance rate of inspected facilities subject to SPCC regulations was
approximately 75%. Beginning in FY 2007, EPA regional, HQ, and Special Teams scores were determined according to a set of readiness criteria to
enhance and strengthen the core emergency response program.
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 2009 Increased use of land protection and restoration research products.
In 2008 Increased use of land protection and restoration research products
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.
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
811
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
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
manage material streams, conserve resources and
appropriately manage waste long-term goal. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the 100 96 100 100 100 100 Percent
mitigation, management and long-term stewardship of
contaminated sites long-term goal. (Research)
Background: The program aims to make measurable progress in providing timely, cutting edge, problem-driven research products to support sound science decisions
by EPA offices engaged in activities to preserve land quality and remediate contaminated land for beneficial reuse. EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) rates the program on its progress periodically, and the program responds to BOSC suggestions to ensure continued improvement.
Additionally, the program aims to increase 1) the number of planned outputs completed on time (a measure of timeliness); and 2) the number of its
papers deemed "highly cited" and of "high impact" in bibliometric analyses (a measure of the quality and use of ORD's research).
GOAL 3: LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 812
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Protect human health by implementation our statutes and taking regulatory actions to ensure pesticides continue to be safe and available when used
with the label.
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.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 813
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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.
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Register reduced risk pesticides, including biopesticides. 14 15 14 14 10 11 Registrations
(1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
New Chemicals (Active Ingr
edients) (1C:
8 19 8 16 12 12 Registrations
Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
New Uses (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
Percentage of agricultural acres treated with reduced-risk
pesticides. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Incidents per 100,000 potential risk events in population
occupationally exposed to pesticides. (6: Ultimate
Ecological/Health Impacts)
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
200
17
235
18
200
18
233
Data Avail
2008
250
18.5
200
19
Actions
Percent Acre-
Treatments
<= <= Incidents/100,
3.5/100,00 3.5/100,00 000
0 0
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
814
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2006
Performance Measures Target Actual
Percent reduction in concentrations of pesticides detected
in general population. (5: Exposure or Body Burden)
Percent reduction in moderate to severe incidents for six
acutely toxic agricultural pesticides with the highest
incident rate. (6: Ultimate Ecological/Health Impacts)
FY 2007
Target Actual
10 Data Avail
2008
FY 2008
Target
No Target
Established
20
FY 2009
Target
30
30
Unit
Percent Cum.
Reduction
Percent Cum.
Reduction
Background: There were 1,388 incidents out of 39,850,000 potential risk events for those occupationally exposed to pesticides in FY 2003. According to NHANES
data for FY 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. The rates for moderate to severe incidents for exposure to agricultural pesticides with the highest incident rates base on FY 1999 -
2003 data were: Chlorpyrifos, 67 incidents; 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). The baseline for acres-treated is 3.6% of total acreage in 1998, when the reduced-risk pesticide acre treatments was
30,332,499 and total (all pesticides) was 843,063,644 acre-treatments. Zero reduced risk pesticides (including biopesticides) are registered in FY 1996;
Cumulative total in FY 2007 is 200 registrations. Zero new chemicals (active ingredients) is registered in FY 1996; Cumulative total in FY 2007 is 117
new chemicals (AI). Zero new use actions in FY 1996; Cumulative total in FY 2007 is 3,774 new use actions.
Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
In 2009 Protect the environment by implementing our statutes and taking regulatory actions to ensure pesticides continue to be safe and available when used
with the label.
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).
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
815
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Product Reregistration (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov. 545 545 545 962 1075 2000 Actions
Activities)
Percent of urban watersheds that exceeds EPA aquatic life 25,25,30 20,20, 25 Percent
benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern. (4: Reduction
Ambient Conditions)
Background: The 1992-2001 baselines as a percentage of urban watersheds sampled that exceeded benchmarks are: diazinon, 40 percent; chlorpyrifos, 37 percent;
and malathion, 30 percent. Zero product reregistraion in 200X; A total of 8,320 product reregistrations were completed in 2007.
Endocrine Disrupters
In 2009 Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program will continue its progress toward completing the validation of endocrine test methods.
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.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 816
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY2006
Target _ Actual
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Target _ Actual _ Target _ Target
Unit
Cumulative number of assays that have been validated.
(Research)
Background: Zero assays were validated in FY 2005.
11/20
2/21
8/20
3/20
13/20
14/19
Assays
Realize the Value from Pesticide Availability
In 2009 Ensure the public health and socio-economic benefits of pesticide availability and use are achieved.
In 2008 Annually avoid S900M in termite structural damage by ensuring safe and effective pesticides are registered/reregistered and available for termite
treatment.
In 2008 Avoid SI. 5 billion of crop loss by ensuring that effective pesticides are available to address pest infestations.
In 2008 Maintain timeliness ofSIS 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 ofSIS decisions.
In 2006 Maintain timeliness ofSIS decisions.
Performance Measures
FY2006
Target _ Actual
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Target _ Actual _ Target _ Target
Unit
Maintain timeliness of S18 decisions (1C:
Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
Millions of dollars in termite structural damage avoided
annually by ensuring safe and effective pesticides are
registered/re-registered and available for termite
treatment. (3 : Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
45
48
45
36.6
45
900 M
45
900 M
Days
Dollars/loss
avoided
817
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Billions of dollars in crop loss avoided by ensuring that
effective pesticides are available to address pest
infestations. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
1.5 B
1.5 B
Dollars/loss
avoided
Background: Based on U.S Census housing data, industry data, and academic studies on damage valuation, EPA calculates that in FY 2003 there were $900 million
in annual savings from structural damage avoided due to availability of registered termiticides. According to EPA and USDA data for the years FY
2000-2005, emergency exemptions issued by EPA resulted in $ 1.5 billion in avoided crop loss. Baseline for S18 decisions is 45 days in 2005
Lead Gasoline Phase-Out
In 2009
In 2009
In 2008
In 2008
Performance
Eliminate use of lead in gasoline in remaining countries that still use
Increase
access to low -sulfur fuels
in developing countries.
Eliminate use of lead in gasoline in remaining countries that still use
Increase
Measures
Number of countries comr.
access to low -sulfur fuels
ileting phase out ofleadea
in developing countries.
FY 2006
Target Actual
\
lead as an additive, affecting more than
lead as an additive, affecting more than
700 million people.
700 million people.
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
7
4
Unit
Countries
gasoline, (incremental) (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Number of countries introducing low sulfur in fuels.
(incremental) (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Countries
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.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
818
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Lead-Based Paint Risk Reduction Program
In 2009 Reduce exposure to and health effects from lead.
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
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. (5: Exposure or Body Burden)
Number of cases of children (aged 1-5 years) with
elevated blood lead levels (>10ug/dl). (5: Exposure or
Body Burden)
FY 2006 FY 2007
Target Actual Target Actual
29 Data Lag No Target
Established
216,000 Data Lag No Target
Established
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Target
29 No Target
Established
90,000 No Target
Established
Unit
Percent
Children
Background: 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). 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.
Chemical Risk Review and Reduction
In 2009 Identify, restrict, and reduce risks associated with 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.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
819
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Annual number of chemicals with proposed values for
Acute Exposure Guidelines Levels (AEGL) (1C:
Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
Percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into
commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to workers,
consumers, or the environment. (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Reduction in the current year production-adjusted risk-
based score of releases and transfers of toxic chemicals
from manufacturing facilities. (6: Ultimate
Ecological/Health Impacts)
Cumulative number of High Production Volume (HPV)
chemicals with Risk Based Decisions Completed. (3:
Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Cumulative number of High Production Volume (HPV)
chemicals with Screening Level Hazard Characterization
Reports completed. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Annual reduction in the production-adjusted risk-based
score of releases and transfers of High Production
Volume (HPV) chemicals from manufacturing facilities.
(3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
24
100
23
100
24
100
33
100
4.5 Data Lag
4.0 Data Lag
Data Lag
889
2.6
931
Data Avail
2009
24
100
3.5
150
1260
2.5
18
100
3.2
490
1585
2.4
Chemicals
Percent
Percent RSEI
Rel risk
HPV
Chemicals
HPV
Chemicals
Percent
Reduction
Background: The baseline for percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the
environment was developed from a 2 year analysis from 2004-2005 comparing 8(e) reports to New Chemical submissions and is 100%. The baseline
for the number of proposed AEGL values was developed for 2002 because after September 11, 2001, EPA received a substantial increase in funding for
this activity. EPA developed Proposed AEGL values for 78 chemicals through 2002. In 2007, a total of 218 chemicals with proposed AEGL Values
were reported for the AEGL Program (cumulative count). Baseline for the Risk Screening Environmental Indicators Model Program in 2001 was zero
percent. 2001 was selected as the baseline year because of changing TRI reporting thresholds for persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals that took
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
820
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
effect in 2001. These changes significantly affect the RSEI model, making comparisons with years prior to 2001 inappropriate. A consistent set of
chemicals can be used from 2001 forward. Cumulative reduction reported through 2005 is 29.3%. The baseline for the number of chemicals with
Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports was developed using data from internationally sponsored HPV chemicals through 2006. EPA assisted
with the development and finalization of reports for these 630 chemicals. The cumulative count of HPV chemicals with reports completed through FY
2007 is 931. The baseline for the percent reduction in the risk based score for HPV chemicals is zero percent in 1998, which was the year the HPV
program began. A cumulative 30.3% reduction has been observed between 1998 and 2005. The baseline for the number of HPV chemicals with risk
based decisions completed in 2007 is zero.
Chemical Facility Risk Reduction
In 2009 Protect human health, communities, and ecosystems from chemical risks and releases through facility risk reduction efforts and building community
infrastructures.
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.
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Number of risk management plan audits and inspections 400 550 400 628 400 400 Audits
completed. (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
Background: 3224 Risk Management Plan audits were completed between FY 2000 and FY 2006.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 821
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
OBJECTIVE: COMMUNITIES
Sustain, clean up, and restore communities and the ecological systems that support them.
U.S.- Mexico Border Water/Wastwater Infrastructure
In 2009 Sustain and restore the environmental health along the United States-Mexico Border through implementation of the "Border 2012" plan.
In 2008 Sustain and restore the environmental health along the United States-Mexico Border through implementation of the "Border 2012" plan.
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water 2,500 2,500 More Homes
in the Mexican border area that lacked access to drinking
water in 2003. (4: Ambient Conditions)
Number of additional homes provided adequate 15,000 15,000 More Homes
wastewater sanitation in the Mexican border area that
lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003. (4:
Ambient Conditions)
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.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
822
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Environmental Justice
In 2009
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.
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 (3:
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008
Target
4
FY 2009
Target
4
Unit
Communities
Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
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)
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.
Revitalize Properties
In 2009 Assess, clean up and promote the reuse of Brownfields properties, and leverage jobs and cleanup/redevelopment funding.
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.
Performance Measures
Brownfield properties assessed. (2:
Activities)
Regulated Party
FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008
Target Actual Target Actual Target
1,000 2,139 1,000 Data Avail 1,000
2008
FY 2009
Target Unit
1000 Properties
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
823
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Target
Unit
Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields 60
funding. (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Acres of Brownfields properties made ready for reuse. (2:
Regulated Party Activities)
Jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities. (0: 5, 000
Indeterminate)
Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds 1
leveraged at Brownfields sites. (2: Regulated Party
88 60 Data Avail
2008
5,504 5,000 Data Avail
2008
1.4 0.9 Data Avail
2008
60
225
5,000
0.9
60
225
5000
0.9
Properties
Acres
Jobs
Billions of
Dollars
Activities)
Background: By the end of FY 2005, the Brownfields program assessed 1,381 properties, cleaned up 93 properties, leveraged 6,128 jobs, and leveraged $1.0B in
cleanup and redevelopment funding.
Pacific Island Territories
In 2009
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).
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 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Target
Unit
Percent 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. (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Percent of the time that the sewage treatment plants in the
U.S. Pacific Island Territories will comply with permit
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
72
72
67
64
Percent
Population
Percent of
Time
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
824
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Target
Unit
limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total
suspended solids (TSS). (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Percent of days of the beach season that beaches in each 70 86 Percent Days
of the U.S. Pacific Island Territories monitored under the
Beach Safety Program will be open and safe for
swimming. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
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 2009 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 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
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
825
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
Acres profc
;cted or restored in NEP study areas.
(4:
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Target Actual Target Actual Target Target
25,000 140,033 50,000
102,462 50,000 75,000
Unit
Acres
Ambient Conditions)
Background: 2005 Baseline: 449,242 acres of habitat protected or restored; cumulative from 2002.
Gulf of Mexico
In 2009 Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
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.
In 2007 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico.
In 2006 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic species in order to improve the health of the Gulf of Mexico.
FY 2006
Performance Measures Target Actual
Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of 2.4 2.4
Mexico on the "good/fair/poor" scale of the National
Coastal Condition Report. (4: Ambient Conditions)
Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality
standards in impaired segments in 13 priority coastal
areas (cumulative starting in FY 07). (6: Ultimate
Ecological/Health Impacts)
Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number of
acres of important coastal and marine habitats. (6:
Ultimate Ecological/Health Impacts)
FY 2007 FY 2008
Target Actual Target
2.4 2.4 2.5
64
18,200
FY 2009
Target
2.5
96
20,600
Unit
Scale
Impaired
Segments
Acres
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
826
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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. No annual targets are set for 2007 and 2008 because
hypoxia varies annually, depending on the timing and extent of spring and summer stratification, weather patterns, temperature, and precipitation in the
Gulf and drainage basin.
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 2009 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved.
In 2008 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved.
In 2007 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved.
In 2006 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes is improved.
FY 2006
Performance Measures Target Actual
Improve the overall ecosystem health of the Great Lakes 21 21. 1
by preventing water pollution and protecting aquatic
systems. (4: Ambient Conditions)
Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated 4.5 4.1
(cumulative) in the Great Lakes. (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Average annual percentage decline for the long-term 5 6
trend in concentrations of PCBs in whole lake trout and
walleye samples. (5: Exposure or Body Burden)
Average annual percentage decline for the long-term 7 8
trend in concentrations of PCBs in the air in the Great
Lakes Basin. (4: Ambient Conditions)
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
21 22.7 22 No Target
Established
4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5
5655
7877
Unit
Scale
Million Cubic
Yards
Percent
Annual
Decrease
Percent
Annual
Decrease
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
827
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Number of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin 21113 No Target Cum. Areas of
which are restored and de-listed. (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Established Concern
Gov. Activities)
Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within No Target 9 16 21 Cum. Number
Areas of Concern. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention) Established of BUI
Removed
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
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 2009 Working with partners, achieve a net increase in wetlands acres with additional focus on assessment of wetland condition.
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.
Performance Measures
In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
states, and tribes, achieve no net loss of wetlands each
year under the Clean Water Act Section 404 regulatory
FY 2006
Target Actual
No Net N/A
Loss
FY 2007
Target Actual
No Net Data Lag
Loss
FY 2008
Target
No Net
Loss
FY 2009
Target
No Net
Loss
Unit
Acres
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 828
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
program (4: Ambient Conditions)
Working with partners, achieve a net increase of'acres of 200,000 N/A 100,000 Data Lag 100,000 100,000 Acres/year
wetlands per year with additional focus on biological and
functional measures and assessment of wetland
conditions, (cumulative) (4: Ambient Conditions)
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 2009 Prevent water pollution and protect aquatic systems so that the overall aquatic system health of the Chesapeake Bay is improved.
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)
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
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 829
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2006 FY 2007
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual
Reduction, from 1985 levels, of nitrogen (M/lbs), 74/8.7/1.1 72.3/8.7/1. 80/9.0/1.16
phosphorus (M/lbs), and sediment loads (tons) entering
Chesapeake Bay. (cumulative) (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Percent of point source nitrogen reduction goal of 49.9 65 68 70 69
million pounds achieved. (3 : Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Percent of point source phosphorus reduction goal of 6. 16 82 84 84 87
million pounds achieved. (3 : Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Percent of forest buffer planting goal of 10,000 miles 46 46 53 53
achieved. (3 : Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in 90,000 78,259 90,000 59,090
the Chesapeake Bay. (cumulative) (4: Ambient
Conditions)
Percent of goal achieved for implementation of nitrogen 44 44 47 46
reduction practices (expressed as progress meeting the
nitrogen reduction goal of 162.5 million pounds). (3 :
Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Percent of goal achieved for implementation of 61 61 64 62
phosphorus reduction practices (expressed as progress
meeting the phosphorus reduction goal of 14.36 million
pounds). (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Percent of goal achieved for implementation of sediment 57 57 61 62
reduction practices (expressed as progress meeting the
sediment reduction goal of 1.69 million pounds). (3:
Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Target Unit
Percent
74 79 Percent Goal
Achieved
85 87 Percent Goal
Achieved
60 68 Percent Goal
Achieved
Acres
50 53 Percent Goal
Achieved
66 69 Percent Goal
Achieved
64 67 Percent Goal
Achieved
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
830
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009
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.
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
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Target
Unit
37,323 34,898 Pounds per
Day
Reduce point source nitrogen discharges to Long Island
Sound as measured by the Long Island Sound Nitrogen
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Restore or protect acres of coastal habitat, including tidal
wetlands, dunes, riparian buffers, and freshwater
wetlands. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Reopen miles of river and stream corridor to anadromous
fish passage through removal of dams and barriers or
installation of by-pass structures such asfishways. (1C:
Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
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.
862
105.9
911
114
Acres
Miles
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
831
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
South Florida Ecosystem
In 2009 Protect and maintain the South Florida Ecosystem, including the Everglades and coral reef ecosystems.
In 2008 Protect and maintain the South Florida Ecosystem, including the Everglades and coral reef ecosystems.
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
No Net
Loss
Mean Percent
of Area
Maintain
Sea Grass
Health
Achieve "no net loss" of stony coral cover in FL Keys 6.7/5.9
Nat'l Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and in the coastal
waters ofDade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, FL
working with all stakeholders. (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov.
Activities)
Annually maintain the overall health and functionality of
sea grass beds in the Florida Keys Nat'I Marine
Sanctuary (FKNMS) as measured by the long-term sea
grass monitoring project. (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and Maintain
coastal waters of the Florida Keys Nat'I Marine
Sanctuary (FKNMS). (4: Ambient Conditions)
Improve the water quality of the Everglades ecosystem as Maintain
measured by total phosphorus, including meeting the 10
ppb total phosphorus criterion throughout the Everglades
Protection Area marsh. (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Background: In 2005, the mean percent of stony coral cover is was 6.8% in FKNMS and 5.9% in Southeast Florida. Total water quality was at chl < 0.2 ug/1, light
attenuation < 0.13/meter, DIN < 0.75 micromolar, and TP < 0.2 micromolar. Florida Keys seagrasses were at 8.28 for N:P of Thalassia and 0.48 for
relative abundance of Thalassia. 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. Effluent limits
will be established for all discharges, including storm water treatment areas.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
Maintain Water Quality
Maintain Parts per
Billion
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
832
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Puget Sound Basin
In 2009 Improve water and air quality, and minimize the adverse impacts of rapid development in the Puget Sound Basin.
In 2008 Improve water and air quality, and minimize the adverse impacts of rapid development in the Puget Sound Basin.
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest
restrictions in acres of shellfish bed growing areas
impacted by degrading or declining water quality. (3:
Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Remediate acres of prioritized contaminated sediments.
(3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Restore the acres oftidally and seasonally influenced
estuarine wetlands. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
600
125
3,000
Acres
Acres
Acres
Background: In 2006, 100 acres of shellfish-bed growing areas improved water quality and lifted harvest restrictions. Additionally, 750 acres oftidally- and seasonally-
influenced estuarine wetlands were restored. In 2007, 120 acres of prioritized contaminated sediments were remediated.
Columbia River Basin
In 2009
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.
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.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
833
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
Protect, enhance, or restore acres of wetland habitat and
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008
Target
3000
FY 2009
Target
10,000
Unit
Acres
acres of upland habitat in the Lower Columbia River
watershed (cumulative starting FY 06). (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Clean up acres of known contaminated sediments 5 Acres
(cumulative starting FY 06). (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov.
Activities)
Background: In 2005, 96,770 acres of wetland and upland habitat available for protection, enhancement, or restoration. In 2008, 3,000 additional acres are expected
to be protected, enhanced, or restored. In FY 2009, 2,000 additional acres are expected to be protected, enhanced, or restored, towards a cumulative
10,000 acres.
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.
Research
Research on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
In 2009 Increased use of endocrine disrupters research program products.
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 Disruptors Screening Program and reduce scientific
uncertainty on effects, exposure, and risk management issues
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
834
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
In 2006 By 2006, develop and transfer standardized protocols for screening chemicals for their potential effects on the endocrine system, so that EPA's Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances has the necessary protocols to validate for use in the Agency's Endocrine Disrupters Screening Program,
mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act, as determined by independent expert review.
Performance Measures
Improved protocols for screening and testing (Research)
Effects and exposure milestones met (Research)
Assessment milestones met (Research)
Risk management milestones met (Research)
FY
Target
1
9
1
o
J
2006
Actual
1
9
0
o
J
FY
Target
6
4
0
o
J
2007
Actual
3
5
0
2
FY 2008
Target
1
o
3
0
2
FY 2009
Target
0
9
0
1
Unit
Reports
Reports
Reports
Reports
Background: The program aims to make measurable progress in 1) determining the extent of the impact of endocrine disrupters on humans, wildlife, and the
environment to better inform the federal and scientific communities; and 2) reducing the uncertainty regarding the effects, exposure, assessment, and
management of endocrine disrupters so that EPA has a sound scientific foundation for environmental decision-making. EPA's Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) rates the program on its progress periodically, and the program responds to BOSC suggestions to ensure continued improvement.
Additionally, the program aims to complete on time each year its 1) improved protocols for screening and testing; 2) effects and exposure milestones; 3)
assessment milestones; and 4) risk management milestones.
Homeland Security Research
In 2009 Enhance public health and safety and mitigate adverse effects of the purposeful introduction of hazardous chemical, biological, or radiological
materials into the environment.
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 COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 835
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
efficient and effective clean-ups and safe disposal of
contamination wastes. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
water security initiatives. (Research)
% of planned outputs delivered in support of support risk 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
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 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
establishment of the environmental National Laboratory
Response Network (Research)
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. 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 2009 Increased use of human health research products.
In 2009 Reduce average time to process research grant proposals while maintaining a credible and efficient merit review system.
In 2008 HH (Human Health)
In 2007 Increased use of human health research products
In 2006 HH (Human Health)
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
836
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY2006
FY2007
Performance Measures
Target
Actual
Target
Actual
FY2008
Target
FY2009
Target
Unit
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of 100
public health outcomes long-term goal. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of 100
mechanistic data long-term goal. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of 100
aggregate and cumulative risk long-term goal. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the 100
susceptible subpopulations long-term goal. (Research)
100
92
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Background: The program aims to make measurable progress in reducing uncertainty in the science underlying human health risk assessment. The program also
conducts research into methods of measuring public health outcomes resulting from risk management practices. EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors
(BOSC) rates the program on its progress periodically, and the program responds to BOSC suggestions to ensure continued improvement. Additionally,
the program aims to increase 1) the number of planned outputs completed on time (a measure of timeliness); 2) the number of its papers deemed "highly
cited" (a measure of the quality and use of ORD's research); and 3) the percentage of peer-reviewed EPA risk assessments in which ORD research is
cited in support of a decision.
Global Change Research
In 2009 Increased use of global change research products.
In 2008 Increased use of global change research products
In 2006 Increased use of global change research products
Performance Measures
Percent pros
;ress toward complel
ion of a framework
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
60 65 75 75 85 95 Percent
linking global change to air quality. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered. (Research)
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
No Target
F t hi' h H
Percent
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
837
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Background: The program aims to make measurable progress in enhancing the understanding of potential impacts of climate variability and change on the
environment. Accordingly, the program provides stakeholders and policy makers with information to help support decision-making. EPA's Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) rates the program on its progress periodically, and the program responds to BOSC suggestions to ensure continued
improvement. Additionally, the program aims to increase 1) the number of planned outputs completed on time (a measure of timeliness); 2) the number
of its papers deemed "highly cited" and of "high impact" in bibliometric analyses (a measure of the quality and use of ORD's research). The program is
also measuring its progress toward completing a framework linking global change to air quality.
Human Health Risk Assessment
In 2009 Increased use of human health risk assessment program products.
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.
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of Air No Target 100
Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents. Established
(Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of 100 100
HHRA health assessments. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of No Target 81
HHRA Technical Support Documents. (Research) Established
Usefulness of HHRA's Air Quality Criteria Documents No Target 158
(AQCDs), represented by the number of days between the Established
completion of AQCD peer review and publication of the
EPA staff document that relies on AQCD (Research)
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
90
90
90
106
100
100
100
68
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
Percent
Percent
Percent
Days
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
838
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Background: The program aims to make measurable progress in providing timely, peer-reviewed health assessments of priority environmental contaminants to
support science-based decision-making in EPA's regulatory and cleanup programs. EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) rates the program on
its progress periodically, and the program responds to BOSC suggestions to ensure continued improvement. Additionally, the program aims to increase
1) the number of planned outputs completed on time (a measure of timeliness); 2) the percentage of regulatory decisions in which decision-makers used
HHRA peer-reviewed health assessments; and 3) the usefulness of HHRA's Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) documents as represented by the
number of days between the completion of ISA peer review and publication of the EPA staff document that relies on the IS As.
Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Research
In 2009 Increased use of Pesticides and Toxics research products.
In 2008 Increased use of Pesticides and Toxics research products.
In 2007 Increased use of safe pesticides/safe products
In 2006 Increased use of pesticides and toxics research products
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures _ Target _ Actual _ Target _ Actual _ Target _ Target _ Unit
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the 100 80 100 86 100 100 Percent
SP2 program's long-term goal one. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the 100 100 100 100 100 100 Percent
SP2 program's long-term goal two. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the 100 100 100 80 100 100 Percent
SP2 program's long-term goal three. (Research)
Background: The program aims to make measurable progress in prioritizing testing requirements and enhancing interpretation of data; conducting spatially explicit
probabilistic ecological risk assessments; and supporting decisionmaking related to products of biotechnology and specific high priority
individual/classes of pesticides and toxic substances. EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) rates the program on its progress periodically, and
the program responds to BOSC suggestions to ensure continued improvement. Additionally, the program aims to increase 1) the percentage of planned
outputs completed on time; and 2) the percentage of program papers rated as "highly cited" and of "high impact" in its bibliometric analysis (a measure
of quality and the use of ORDs research).
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 839
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Ecosystems Research
In 2009 Increased use of ecosystems research products.
In 2008 Increased use of ecosystems research products
In 2006 Increased use of ecosystems research products
Performance Measures
Number of states using a comm
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
on monitoring design and 25 25 30 30 35 40 States
appropriate indicators to determine the status and trends
of ecological resources and the effectiveness of programs
and policies. (Research)
Percentage of Ecological Research publications rated as
highly-cited publications. (Research)
Percentage of Ecological research publications in "high-
impact" journals. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of
State, tribe, and relevant EPA office needs for causal
diagnosis tools and methods to determine causes of
ecological degradation. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of
State, tribe, and relevant EPA office needs for
environmental forecasting tools and methods to forecast
the ecological impacts of various actions. (Research)
Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of
State, tribe, and EPA office needs for environmental
restoration and services tools and methods to protect and
restore ecological condition and services. (Research)
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
100
No Target
Established
No Target
Established
86
20.4
20.3
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
21.1 No Target 21.4
Established
20.8 No Target 21.3
Established
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
840
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Background: The program aims to make measurable progress in providing the scientific understanding to measure, model, maintain, and/or restore, at multiple scales,
the integrity and sustainability of highly valued ecosystems now and in the future. EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) rates the program on
its progress periodically, and the program responds to BOSC suggestions to ensure continued improvement. Additionally, the program aims to increase
1) the number of planned outputs completed on time (a measure of timeliness); 2) the number of its papers deemed "highly cited" and of "high impact"
in bibliometric analyses (a measure of the quality and use of ORD's research); and 3) the number of states using a common monitoring design and
appropriate indicators to determine the status and trends of ecological resources and the effectiveness of programs and policies.
GOAL 4: HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 841
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Protect human health and the environment through ensuring compliance with environmental requirements by enforcing environmental statutes,
preventing pollution, and promoting environmental stewardship. Encourage innovation and provide 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. (Baseline: 3-year rolling average FYs 2003-2005: 900,000,000 pounds.)
Monitoring and Enforcement
In 2009 Through monitoring and enforcement actions, EPA will increase complying actions, pollutant reduction or treatment, and improve environmental
management practices.
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.
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or 450 890 500 890 890 890 Million
eliminated as a result of concluded enforcement actions. pounds
(civil enf) (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 842
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
30
Percentage
70
25
Percentage
Percentage
4.4 Billion dollars
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that 30 Data Avail 30 27 30
pollution be reduced, treated, or eliminated. (2: FY 2008
Regulated Party Activities)
Percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring 65 82 70 70 70
implementation of improved environmental management
practices. (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions 25 16 30 18 30
as a result ofon-site compliance inspections and
evaluations. (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Dollars invested in improved environmental performance 4.1 5.0 4.2 10.6 4.3
or improved environmental management practices as a
result of concluded enforcement actions (i.e., injunctive
relief and SEPs) (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Background: The FY 2005-2007 rolling average baseline for pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated is 960,000,000 pounds of pollutants.
The FY 2007 baseline for the percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring that pollutants estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated is the
FY2007 result which is 27 percent. The reason for using the FY2005 result as the FY2006 baseline is due to the data lag in the FY2006 result. The FY
2007 baseline for the percentage of concluded enforcement cases requiring implementation of improved environmental management practices is 70
percent. The FY 2006 baseline for the percentage of regulated entities taking complying actions as a result of on-site compliance inspections and
evaluations is 18 percent. The FY 2005-2007 rolling average baseline for dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved
environmental management practices is $8,500,000,000.
Compliance Incentives
In 2009 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 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.
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
843
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 self-disclosure policies, EPA will increase the percentage of audits or other actions reducing pollutants or improving EMP.
Performance Measures
Pounds of pollutants estimated to be reduced, treated, or
eliminated, as a result of audit agreements. (3 : Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
FY 2006
Target Actual
0.4 0.05
FY 2007
Target Actual
0.4 1.20
FY 2008
Target
0.4
FY 2009
Target
0.4
Unit
Million
pounds
Background: The FY2007 baseline for pounds of pollutants estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audit agreements is 1.2 million pounds of
pollutants.
Compliance Assistance
In 2009 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 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.
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 844
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct 50
compliance assistance from EPA reporting that they
improved environmental management practices as a
result of EPA assistance. (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct 15
assistance from EPA reporting that they reduced, treated,
or eliminated pollution, as a result of EPA assistance. (2:
Regulated Party Activities)
74
28
50
15
91
50
50
15
60
20
Percentage
Percentage
Background: The FY2007 baseline for the percentage of regulated entities receiving direct compliance assistance from EPA reporting that they improved BMP as a
result of EPA assistance is 91%. The FY2007 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 50%. These measures are not calculated from a
representative sample of the regulated entity universe. The percentages are based, in part, on the number of regulated entities that answered affirmatively
to these questions on voluntary surveys. The percentages do not account for the number of regulated entities who chose not to answer these questions or
the majority of entities who chose not to answer the surveys.
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH POLLUTION PREVENTION AND OTHER
STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES
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 2009 Reduce pollution in business operations.
In 2008 Reduce pollution in business operations.
In 2007 Reduce pollution in business operations.
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
845
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
Number of pounds (in millions)
of priority chemicals
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
0.5 M 1.3M
FY 2008
Target
1.0 M
FY 2009
Target
1.0 M
Unit
Pounds
reduced, as measured by National Partnership for
Environmental Priorities members. (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Background: The 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.
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.
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
846
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007
Target Actual
FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Target
Unit
Specific annual reductions in six media/resource areas:
water use, energy use, solid waste, air releases, water
discharges, & materials use. (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Reduce 3.7 billion gallons of water use; 16.3 million
MMBTUs of energy use; 1,050 tons of materials use;
460,000 tons of solid waste; 66,000 tons of air releases;
& 12,400 tons of water discharges. (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Reduce water use at Performance Track facilities. (3:
Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Reduce hazardous materials use at Performance Track
facilities. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Reduce production of greenhouse gases at Performance
Track facilities. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Reduce toxic releases to water at Performance Track
facilities. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
Reduce combined NOx, SOx, VOC and PM emissions at
Performance Track facilities. (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
75% ofinnov. proj. completed under the SIG prog, will
achieve, on average, 8% or greater imp. in envtl results
for sectors and facilities involved, or 5% or greater imp.
in cost-effectiveness & effic (3: Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
3,900,000,000 3,900,000,000
10,000 10,000
175,000 175,000
220 220
4,000 4,000
75
75
Media
reduction
Media
reduction
Gallons
Tons
MTCO2E
Tons
Tons
Percentage
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
847
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
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 2009 Prevent, reduce the need to recycle, treat, or dispose of hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and enhance environmental stewardship and
sustainability.
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 2006 Prevent, reduce and recycle hazardous industrial/commercial chemicals and improve environmental stewardship practices.
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Unit
BTUs of energy reduced, conserved or offset by P2 906.7B 4,442 B 1J06.8B Data Avail 1,217.4B 1,580.9B BTUs
program participants. (3: Pollution 2008
Reduction/Prevention)
Gallons of water reduced by P2 program participants. (3: 329M 2,272M 1J90M Data Avail 1,640M 1J91M Gallons
Pollution Reduction/Prevention) 2008
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 848
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
Business, institutional and government costs reduced by
P2 program participants. (3 : Pollution
Reduction/Prevention)
Pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program
participants. (3: Pollution Reduction/Prevention)
FY 2006
Target Actual
38.2 M 86.8 M
401 M 394 M
FY 2007
Target Actual
44.3 M Data Avail
2008
414 419M
FY 2008
Target
45.9 M
429 M
FY 2009
Target
67.8 M
494 M
Unit
Dollars saved
Pounds
Background: The baseline for the Pollution Prevention Program BTUs is 0 in FY 2002. Data currently available indicate that the P2 program has reduced, conserved,
or offset 8 Billion BTUs since 2002. The baseline for the Pollution Prevention Program gallons of water was 220 millions gallons in FY 2000. Data
currently available indicate that the P2 program has reduced 9.4 billion gallons of water since 2000. The baseline for the Pollution Prevention Program
cost savings is 0 dollar in FY 2002. Data currently available indicate that the P2 program has saved $178 million in business, government, and
institutional costs since 2002. The baseline for the Pollution Prevention Program hazardous material reduced is 0.044 billion pounds in FY 2000. Data
currently available indicate 2 billion pounds of hazardous materials have been reduced since FY 2000.
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 Priori
In 2009 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 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.
GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 849
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Measures
FY 2006
Target Actual
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual Target Target
Unit
Percent of Tribes implementing federal regulatory
environmental programs in Indian country (cumulative).
(1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
Percent of Tribes conducting EPA approved
environmental monitoring and assessment activities in
Indian country (cumulative.) (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov.
Activities)
Percent of Tribes with an environmental program
(cumulative). (1C: Fed/State/Tribal Gov. Activities)
Percent of tribes with EPA-approved multimedia
workplans. (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Percent of tribes with delegated and non-delegated
programs (cumulative). (2: Regulated Party Activities)
Percent of Tribes with EPA-reviewed monitoring and
assessment occurring. (2: Regulated Party Activities)
21
57
23
60
39
48
30
42
57
42
49
31
59
73
43
Percent Tribes
Percent Tribes
Percent Tribes
Percent Tribes
Percent Tribes
Percent Tribes
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.
OBJECTIVE: ENHANCE SOCIETIES CAPACITY FOR SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH SCIENCE AND RESEARCH
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 5: COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
850
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES
Enabling Support Programs
NPM: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Energy Consumption Reduction
In 2009 As required by Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management, EPA will achieve a 12%
reduction in energy consumption from the Agency's 2003 baseline.
In 2008 As required by Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management, EPA will achieve a 9%
reduction in energy consumption from the Agency's 2003 baseline.
In 2007 As required by Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management, EPA will achieve a 6%
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.
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual
Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption. 2 3 6 9 9 12 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 2009 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 (MCOs). 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 RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 851
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
FY 2006
Performance Measures Target Actual
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
Agency Manager's satisfaction with the initial stages of
the human resources hiring process, as measured by the
average score across 4 questions in the OPM
Management Hiring Satisfaction Survey.
Maintenance and improvement ofMCO employee
competencies, as measured by proficiency levels of
competencies in MCO's re-assessed in 2009.
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Target Actual
45 28 45 45
90 66 73 68
90
80
Days
Days
Percent
Percent
Background: Baselines for the new measures will be established in FY2007/08. For the average time to hire, these human capital performance measures and targets
were selected from EPA's President's Management Agenda.
NPM: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 852
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
NPM: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Information Exchange Network
In 2009 Improve the quality, comparability, and availability of environmental data for sound environmental decision-making through the Central Data
Exchange (CDX).
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).
Performance Measures
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Target Actual Target Actual
Number of major EPA environmental systems that use the 29 32 36 37
CDX electronic requirements enabling faster receipt,
processing, and quality checking of data.
States, tribes and territories 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 47,000 62,000 55,000 88,516
others that choose CDX to report environmental data
electronically to EPA.
Background: The Central Data Exchange program began in FY 2001.
Information Security
In 2009 OMB reports that all EPA information systems meet/exceed established standards for security.
NPM: OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
45
55
60
55
100,000 110,000
Systems
Users
Users
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized)
853
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
FY 2006 FY 2007
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual
FY 2008 FY 2009
Percent of Federal Information Security Management Act 100 100 100 100 100 100 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
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 854
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
NPM: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fraud Detection and Deterrence
In 2009 In 2009, the OIG will improve public confidence and integrity in EPA program operations by detecting and preventing fraud, abuse and breaches of
security.
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.
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Performance Measures Target Actual Target Actual
Criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention 80 121 80 103 80 80 Actions
actions.
Background: In FY 2005, the OIG established a baseline of 83 criminal, civil, administrative, and fraud prevention actions.
Audit and Advisory Services
In 2009 In 2009, 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 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.
NPM: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 855
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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 the OIG budget, from audits and investigations.
FY
Target
303
925
150
2006
Actual
407
1,024
1,100
FY
Target
318
925
150
2007
Actual
464
949
189
FY 2008
334
971
120
FY 2009
318
903
120
Actions
Recommendati
ons
Percentage
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.
NPM: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
(non-Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are italicized) 856
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2009 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.
857
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
858
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
859
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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/.
860
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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, I. L., I. S. Kahl, F. A. Deviney, D. R DeWalle, C. T. Driscoll, A. T. Herlihy, I. H. Kellogg, P.
S. Murdoch, I. 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 2009 Performance Measures:
• Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of
fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline
(PART measure)
• Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of
ozone in monitored counties from 2003 baseline (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.
861
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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/t 1 /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
862
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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).
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days to process SIP revisions
weighted by complexity [PART efficiency measure].
Performance Databases: None
Data Sources: Data are provided by EPA's regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Baseline for processing SIP revisions is 420 days
(The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides 60 days for completeness + 360 days for technical review)
Each Region will maintain a SIP tracking system. It will include the date of receipt, interim
dates and the final Regional Administrator's signature for each SIP submission. At the end of
the fiscal year, each Region will sum the total allowable SIP processing days and the total actual
SIP processing days for SIP revisions processed to final action during the fiscal year. Each
Region will then submit the totals to the National SIP processing work group chair who will then
divide the total actual processing days by the total allowable processing days and calculate the
percent difference from base year processing time.
The SIP revisions are weighted by complexity because it takes some areas longer than others to
reach attainment.
863
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
QA/QC Procedures: EPA regional staff ensure the number of SIP revisions finalized is equal
to or less than the total number of SIP revisions received.
Data Quality Review: Same as QA/QC procedures
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been made during
data entry.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: None.
FY 2009 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
864
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 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) I 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/.
865
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 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
866
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/programs/namslam.html and through United States
EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15)
PMC: The QA/QC procedures at each State, local, Tribal, or Federal agency are the same as
documented above. Because the DMC handles real-time data, additional QA/QC data checks are
built into the data flow process to further guard against erroneous values being passed through
the system. Data in the DMC are not considered final and are not used for any regulatory
purpose. Data in the AQS system are the official values used for regulatory analyses.
Data Quality Review:
AQS: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal audits
are regularly conducted.
DMC: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal audits
are regularly conducted and data are routinely processed by external users where
applicable.
Data Limitations:
AQS: None known
DMC: None known
Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate. There is still too
much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to meteorological
conditions for example).
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.
DMC: 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.
867
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 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, 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
868
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
869
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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/.
870
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk)
emissions of air toxics from 2003 baseline (PART measure)
• Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for noncancer risk)
emissions of air toxics from 2003 baseline (PART measure)
Performance Databases:
• National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
• EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk Characterization
Data Source:
To better measure the percentage change in cancer and noncancer risk to the public, a toxicity-
weighted emission inventory performance measure has been developed. This measure utilizes
data from the NEI for air toxics along with data from EPA's Health Criteria Data for Risk
Characterization (found at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html), which is a
compendium of cancer and noncancer health risk criteria used to develop a risk metric. This
compendium includes tabulated values for long-term (chronic) inhalation for many of the 188
hazardous air pollutants. These health risk data were obtained from various data sources
including EPA, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, California
Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The
numbers from the health risk database are used for estimating the risk of contracting cancer and
the level of hazard associated with adverse health effects other than cancer.
The NEI for HAPs includes emissions from large and small industrial sources inventoried as
point sources, smaller stationary area and other sources, such as fires inventoried as non-point
sources, and mobile sources. Prior to 1999 NEI for HAPs, there was the National Toxics
Inventory (NTI). The baseline NTI (for base years 1990 - 1993) includes emissions information
for 188 hazardous air pollutants from more than 900 stationary sources and from mobile sources.
It is based on data collected during the development of Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards, state and local data, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, and
emissions estimates using accepted emission inventory methodologies. The baseline NTI
contains county level emissions data and cannot be used for modeling because it does not contain
facility specific data.
The 1996 NTI and the 1999 NEI for HAPs contain stationary and mobile source estimates.
These inventories also contain estimates of facility-specific HAP emissions and their source
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
871
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
Hazardous Air Pollutants), can project future emissions, by adjusting stationary source emission
data to account for growth and emission reductions resulting from emission reduction scenarios
such as the implementation of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards.
Once the EMS-HAP process has been performed, the EPA would tox-weight the inventory by
"weighting" the emissions for each pollutant with the appropriate health risk criteria. This would
be accomplished through a multi-step process. Initially, pollutant by pollutant values would be
obtained from the NEI for the current year and the baseline year (1990/93). Conversion of actual
tons for each pollutant for the current year and the baseline year to "toxicity-weighted" tons
would be accomplished by multiplying the appropriate values from the health criteria database
such as the unit risk estimate (URE) or lifetime cancer risk (defined at
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/gloss.htmtfrfc) to get the noncancer tons. These toxicity-weighted
values act as a surrogate for risk and allow EPA to compare the toxicity-weighted values against
a 1990/1993 baseline of toxicity-weighted values to determine the percentage reduction in risk
on an annual basis
Complete documentation on development of the NEI for HAPs can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/index.html. For more information and references on EMS-
HAP, go to the following web sites: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htmtfaspen and
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html. The growth and reduction
information used for the projections are further described at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/projection/emshap.html.
QA/QC Procedures: The NTI and the NEI for HAPs are databases designed to house
information from other primary sources. The EPA performs extensive quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) activities, including checking data provided by other organizations, to improve
the quality of the emission inventory. Some of these activities include: (1) the use of an
automated format QC tool to identify potential errors of data integrity, code values, and range
checks; (2) use of geographical information system (GIS) tools to verify facility locations; and
(3) automated content analysis by pollutant, source category and facility to identify potential
872
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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/qaaugmementationmemo99nei 60603.pdf
The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and identifies
the augmentation method. After performing the content analysis, the EPA contacts data
providers to reconcile potential errors. The draft NTI is posted for external review and includes
a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission of revisions, state-by-state
modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files to assist in the review of the data.
One of the summary files includes a comparison of point source data submitted by different
organizations. During the external review of the data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and
industry provide external QA of the inventory. The EPA evaluates proposed revisions from
external reviewers and prepares memos for individual reviewers documenting incorporation of
revisions and explanations if revisions were not incorporated. All revisions are tracked in the
database with the source of original data and sources of subsequent revision.
The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant changes in the
initial emission estimates, as seen by comparison of the initial draft NEI for HAPs and its final
version. For more information on QA/QC of the NEI for HAPs, please refer to the following
web site for a paper presented at the 2002 Emission Inventory Conference in Atlanta. "QA/QC -
An Integral Step in the Development of the 1999 National Emission Inventory for HAPs", Anne
Pope, et al. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei 11/qa/pope.pdf
EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) has created uniform data standards or
elements, which provide "meta" information on the standard NEI Input Format (NIF) fields.
These standards were developed by teams representing states, Tribes, EPA and other Federal
agencies. The use of common data standards among partners fosters consistently defined and
formatted data elements and sets of data values, and provides public access to more meaningful
data. The standards relevant to the NEI for HAPs are the: SIC/NAICS, Latitude/Longitude,
Chemical Identification, Facility Identification, Date, Tribal and Contact Data Standards. The
1999 NEI for HAPs is compliant with all new data standards except the Facility Identification
Standard because OEI has not completed its assignment of Facility IDs to the 1999 NEI for
HAPs facilities.
873
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
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.
874
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 at www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040331-2004-p-00012.pdf). The report stated
that although the methods used have improved substantially, unvalidated assumptions and other
limitations underlying the NTI continue to impact its use as a GPRA performance measure. As a
result of this evaluation and the OIG recommendations for improvement, EPA prepared an action
plan and is looking at ways to improve the accuracy and reliability of the data. EPA will meet
bi-annually with OIG to report on its progress in completing the activities as outlined in the
action plan.
While the Agency has made every effort to utilize the best available science in selecting
appropriate health criteria data for toxicity-weighting calculations there are inherent limitations
and errors (uncertainties) associated with this type of data. While it is not practical to expose
humans to chemicals at target doses and observe subsequent health implications over long
periods of time, most of the agencies health criteria is derived from response models and
laboratory experiments involving animals. The parameter used to convert from exposure to
cancer risk (i.e. the Unit Risk Estimate or URE) is based on default science policy processes used
routinely in EPA assessments. First, some air toxics are known to be carcinogens in animals but
lack data in humans. These have been assumed to be human carcinogens. Second, all the air
toxics in this assessment were assumed to have linear relationships between exposure and the
probability of cancer (i.e. effects at low exposures were extrapolated from higher, measurable,
exposures by a straight line). Third, the URE used for some air toxics compounds represents a
maximum likelihood estimate, which might be taken to mean the best scientific estimate. For
other air toxics compounds, however, the URE used was an "upper bound" estimate, meaning
that it probably leads to an overestimation of risk if it is incorrect. For these upper bound
estimates, it is assumed that the URE continues to apply even at low exposures. It is likely,
therefore, that this linear model over-predicts the risk at exposures encountered in the
environment. The cancer weighting-values for this approach should be considered "upper bound"
in the science policy sense.
875
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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:
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
Contents: Modeling data files for each state
Summary data files for nation
Documentation
README file
Audience: individuals who want full access to NTI files
NEON: http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
Available inventories: 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
Contents: Summary data files
Audience: EPA staff
876
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
CHIEF: 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
Audience: 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/proiection/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 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of additional homes (new and existing) with radon reducing features
(PART measure)
• Total cost (public and private) per future premature lung cancer death prevented
through lowered radon exposure (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Annual industry survey data of home builders provided by the
National Association of Home Builders and internal database of fan sales.
877
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
Radon fan manufacturers report fan sales to the Agency. EPA assumes one fan per radon
mitigated home, and a fan life of 10 years, and then multiplies the assumed number of working
fans by the assumed average of 2.67 people per household.
To estimate the reduced number of lung cancer deaths resulting from lowered radon exposure,
EPA applies risk reduction estimates from its 2003 radon risk assessment to the number of
existing homes mitigated for elevated radon levels and the number of new homes built with
radon resistant new construction. Cost estimate includes both public and private sector costs,
using EPA's 2003 estimate as a baseline.
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.
878
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
This measure is a combination of data that includes additional number of homes built with radon
resistant new construction (RRNC), reported by industry on an annual basis, as well as additional
radon mitigations which are estimated from annual radon fan sales.
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 include QA/QC by the vendor that is utilized for key entry of data.
Because fan sales data are obtained from an external organization, EPA relies on the business
practices of radon fan manufacturers for reporting the data.
Data Quality Review: Because data are obtained from an external organization, Data Quality
Review procedures are not entirely known. NAHB Research Center indicates that each survey is
manually reviewed, a process that requires several months to complete. The review includes
data quality checks to ensure that the respondents understood the survey questions and answered
the questions appropriately. NAHB Research Center also applies checks for open-ended
questions to verify the appropriateness of the answers. In some cases, where open-ended
questions request numerical information, the data are capped between the upper and lower three
percent of the values provided in the survey responses. Also, a quality review of each year's
draft report from NAHB Research Center is conducted by the EPA project officer. Fan sales
data are obtained from an external organization and EPA reviews the data to ascertain their
reliability and discusses any irregularities with the relevant manufacturer.
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.
Reporting by radon fan manufacturers is voluntary and may underestimate the number of radon
fans sold. Nevertheless, these are the best available data to determine the number of homes
mitigated. There are other methods to mitigate radon including: passive mitigation techniques of
879
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
sealing holes and cracks in floors and foundation walls, installing sealed covers over sump pits,
installing one-way drain valves in untrapped drains, and installing static venting and ground
covers in areas like crawl spaces. Because there are no data on the occurrence of these methods,
there is again the possibility that the number of radon mitigated homes has been underestimated.
No radon vent fan manufacturer, vent fan motor maker or distributor is required to report to
EPA; they provide data/information voluntarily to EPA. There are only four (4) radon vent fan
manufacturers of any significance; one of these accounts for an estimated 70% of the market.
Radon vent fans are unlikely to be used for non-radon applications. However, vent fans typically
used for non-radon applications are perhaps being installed as substitutes for radon vent fans in
some instances; estimated to be less than 1% of the total market. Ascertaining the actual number
of radon vent fans used for other applications, and the number of non-radon fans being
substituted in radon applications, would be difficult and expensive at this time relative to the
benefit of having such data.
Error Estimate: 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/ 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.
See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html for National performance/progress reporting
(National Radon Results: 1985-to 2003) on radon, measurement, mitigation and radon-resistant
new construction.
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of people taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor
environmental asthma triggers (PART measure)
• Annual cost to EPA per person with asthma taking all essential actions to reduce
exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: The National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and
Children's Exposure to ETS (NSEMA) provides information about the measures taken by people
with asthma, and parents of children with asthma, to minimize exposure to indoor environmental
asthma triggers, including environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Additional information about
asthma morbidity and mortality in the US is obtained from surveys conducted by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including the National Health Interview Survey, the
880
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
Survey. 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/04_chtbk.pdf. .
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. In addition to
NSEMA, information about ETS is obtained periodically from the CDC studies cited above
Data Source: The NSEMA (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). Data on annual expenditures for health and lost productivity due to asthma
are obtained from the NHLBI Chartbook. (www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/04_chtbk.pdf).
EPA will gather asthma trigger data through questions that are being integrated into a CDC
survey. Essential actions address mold, dust mites, secondhand smoke, cockroaches, pets,
nitrogen dioxide, and chemical irritants. Cost includes EPA full cost of implementing the asthma
program.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: End-of-year performance for the asthma program is a
best professional estimate using all data sources (including information on annual measures on
partner performance and advertising awareness outlined below). 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 a national survey instrument in 2009. EPA is collaborating with CDC to
integrate questions on environmental management of asthma into an existing CDC national
survey mechanism to provide performance results data in the future. Also, data provided for the
annual measures are used to support progress towards the long term performance measure.
The NSEMA (OMB control number 2060-0490) 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.
QA/QC Procedures: The NSEMA was designed in accordance with approved Agency
procedures. Additional information is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/icr/players.html. 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
881
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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: 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 2003 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: EPA is collaborating with CDC to integrate questions on
environmental management of asthma into an existing CDC national survey mechanism to
provide performance results data in the future. The 2003 NSEMA estimates, and the integration
of the CDC survey population, will provide consistent tracking measures at a reduced cost, while
reducing the burden to the public. This collaboration will improve national asthma surveillance
efforts.
882
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
References:
Asthma
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(www.cdc.gov/nchs/)
EPA Indoor Environments Division (www.epa.gov/iaq/)
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)
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm),
US Surgeon General's report on tobacco (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/index.htm/),
National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Tobacco Monograph Series
(http ://cancercontrol. cancer, gov/tcrb/monographs/),
NCI funded Tobacco Use Supplement portion of the US Census Bureau's Current Population
Survey (http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/studies/tus-cps/),
Healthy People 2010 (http://www.healthypeople.gov/).
FY 2009 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.
883
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 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/.
884
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Estimated annual number of schools establishing Indoor Air Quality programs
based on EPA's Tools for Schools guidance (PART measure)
• Total number of schools implementing an effective Indoor Air Quality plan (PART
measure)
• Average cost to EPA per student per year in a school that is implementing an indoor
air quality plan. (PART efficiency 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. The SHPSS survey is conducted at 6 year intervals so the next nationally
representative data would be collected in 2012 and would measure progress against the long term
2012 program goal.
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.
On a 6 year basis, EPA collaborates with CDC to determine the number of schools implementing
an IAQ plan. Effectiveness is defined as a plan that is consistent with EPA's Tool for Schools
guidance and scores a 70 or higher on EPA's IAQ management index.
Total Number of students is derived from the number of schools multiplied by the nationwide
average of 525 students, faculty and staff. Effectiveness is defined as a plan that is consistent
with EPA's Tool for Schools guidance and scores a 70 or higher on EPA's indoor air quality
(IAQ) management index. Cost includes EPA full cost of implementing IAQ programs.
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
885
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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. Key portions of EPA's 2006 survey will be included
as part of CDC's 2006 School Health Policies and Programs Study, which is conducted every six
years.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately and
completely as possible; site visits and regular communication with grantees are conducted by
EPA projects officers.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources in the performance database to
ascertain reliability and to resolve any discrepancies.
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Cooperative Agreement Partner status
reporting is the error introduced as a result of self-reporting.
Error Estimate: Not relevant for this year.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Prior to the 2002 survey, EPA tracked the number of schools
receiving the TfS guidance and estimated the population of the school to determine the number
of students/staff experiencing improved indoor air quality. The survey was administered to
establish a baseline for schools implementing IAQ management practices. EPA queried a
statistically representative sample of schools to estimate the number of schools that have actually
adopted and implemented good IAQ management practices consistent with the TfS guidance.
EPA has integrated key portions of the 2002 survey into 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/. See also Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Kit (402-K-95-001)
at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools 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.
886
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2009 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
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
887
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of most populous U.S. cities with a RadNet ambient radiation air
monitoring system, which will provide data to assist in protective action
determinations. (PART measure)
Performance Database: EPA database of RadNet program expansion. Data from the near real
time gamma component of the ambient air radiation monitoring system, RadNet, will be stored
in the EPA RadNet database at the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
(NAREL) in Montgomery, AL.
Data Source: Data on the number and location of monitors will be stored in the NAREL RadNet
program expansion database; U.S. Census Bureau population data will be used to calculate 100
most populous cities; environmental data from the RadNet system will be stored in the NAREL
RadNet database.
Methods and Assumptions: These monitors will provide data on ambient environmental levels
of radiation on an ongoing basis and in the event of a radioactive contamination event.
Suitability: This measure was selected to show the implementation of the fixed monitoring
network and the benefit to population. Over time, once the system is fully implemented, this
measure will become obsolete.
888
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow Agency
guidelines and be consistent with the RadNet Quality Assurance Project Plan once it is complete
(scheduled to be finalized in early 2008). Laboratory analyses of air filters and other media, as
well as all calibrations, are closely controlled in compliance with the NAREL Quality
Management Plan and applicable Standard Operating Procedures (EPA Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air (ORIA), National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory Quality Management
Plan Revision 1, dated March 15, 2001 and reaffirmed August 23, 2006).
Data Quality Review: Science Advisory Review Board reviewed and analyzed the RadNet
system and presented their suggestions for the expansion and upgrade of the system. Advice on
siting of the monitors was presented to EPA. (EPA SAB Report, Review of 2005 Agency Draft
entitled "Expansion and Upgrade of the RadNet Air Monitoring Network, Vol. 1 & 2, Concept
and Plan," Quality Review Draft, 8/17/06)
http://epa.gov/sab/pdf/radnet_fmal_qual_rev_draft_08-17-06.pdf.
Data Limitations: N/A.
Error Estimate: It is not anticipated that significant error will occur in tracking the number of
monitors placed in cities.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None planned at this time.
References: For more information about the system, see: www.epa.gov/narel/radnet
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Level of readiness of radiation program personnel and assets to support federal
radiological emergency response and recovery operations (measured as
percentage of radiation response team members and assets that meet scenario-
based response criteria). (PART measure)
Performance Database: Internal Database
Data Source: Annual measurement of readiness based on an evaluation of the emergency
response assets.
Methods and Assumptions: EPA developed standardized criteria based on the functional
requirements identified in the National Response Plan's Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex
and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). A baseline
analysis for the Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) was performed in 2005, for
EAP Headquarters and is based on the effectiveness of the RERT during incidents and national
exercises.
889
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Suitability: This measure and its criteria were developed to compliment Department of
Homeland Security criteria as well as those of the EPA Core Emergency Response and Removal
(Core ER) program evaluation measures.
QA/QC Procedures: An evaluation panel consisting of three representatives from the
Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT), one from each Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air (ORIA) Laboratory and one from ORIA Headquarters, and ORIA management
representatives (including at least one representative from outside the ORIA Radiological
Emergency Response Program) annually perform a critical evaluation of ORIA's Radiological
Emergency Response Program's capabilities versus the standardized criteria, resulting in an
overall annual percentage score, as well as component percentage scores. Representatives will
not be involved in the evaluation of their own location. Members are chosen based on
volunteerism and by lottery on an annual basis. The Panel is chaired by the non-RERT
management representative
Data Quality Review: Evaluation information is provided to the ORIA Office Director annually
for use in evaluating progress. Data quality is certified by the Laboratory Directors at the
Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory and the National Air and Radiation
Environmental Laboratory as well as by the Division Director of the Radiation Protection
Division.
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: None known
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Radiological Emergency Response Measurement Implementation Plan: Long-
Term Outcome Performance Measure, Readiness. FY 2007 Radiation PART Assessment (Draft:
7/25/2007)
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Level of readiness of national environmental radiological laboratory capacity
(measured as percentage of laboratories adhering to EPA quality criteria for
emergency response and recovery decisions). (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Internal Database
Data Source: EPA will conduct laboratory assessments between years 2006 to 2011 to
determine commercial, state and federal laboratory capability, capacity, and qualifications. This
890
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
is a phased-in approach and initial work has already begun. In 2007, EPA has conducted an
initial capacity and capability survey of select commercial radiation laboratories.
Methods and Assumptions: The percentage laboratory capacity that is needed is based on the
Homeland Security Council Radiological Attack, Radiological Dispersal Device Scenario.
Similarly, radiological scenario analytical needs will be based on the Homeland Security Council
Radiological Dispersion Device (RDD) Scenario. Laboratory capacity determines, for example,
equipment needs, whereas, analytical needs measurement determines expert modeling capability,
etc. Both are important factors in determining level of readiness. Increased laboratory capacity
for those laboratories assisted through EPA guidance and training will be calculated.
Suitability: This measure is critical to identifying level of readiness relative to radiological
laboratory capacity in the event of an incident of national significance.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow Agency
guidelines and be consistent with EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Quality
Management Plan Revision, dated October 2004.
Data Quality Review: Information gained from the laboratory assessments with respect to
capacity and ability to meet method validation protocols will be used to determine laboratory
capacity, which adheres to EPA quality criteria.
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Radiological Emergency Response Measurement Implementation Plan: Long-
Term Outcome Performance Measure, Readiness. FY 2007 Radiation PART Assessment (Draft:
7/25/2007)
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Average time of availability of quality assured ambient radiation air monitoring
data during an emergency. (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Data from the near real-time gamma component RadNet will be stored
in an internal EPA database at the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
(NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama.
891
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Data Source: The baseline for this measure is the current calculated response time which is
based on shipment time and laboratory analysis time. As real-time monitors are put into service,
the efficiency of the system will increase. Near real-time units will have reliable data in hours
compared to days for conventional monitors, which are dependent on shipment and analysis time
of samples.
Methods and Assumptions: The time between data collection at the monitoring sites and
availability of data for release by EPA will be determined annually for the system as a whole,
including existing (legacy) monitors and new near real-time monitors. The efficiency data will be
compiled from existing and ongoing operational records of RadNet.
The monitoring system efficiency is based on two assumptions: (1) 43 conventional (non-real-
time) monitoring stations exist in the system before the addition of any real-time monitors, and
(2) a baseline of two and one-half days (60 hours) are required for data to become available
(during emergency conditions) from the 43 non-real-time monitors. The initial interval of 2.5
days assumes the network is in alert status when time counting begins. Six (6) hours is the time
required for data to become available from the near real-time monitors.
Suitability: This measure provides key data regarding availability of data and operational
readiness of the nationwide RadNet ambient radiation monitoring network.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow Agency
guidelines and be consistent with the RadNet Quality Assurance Project Plan once it is complete
(scheduled to be finalized in early 2008). Laboratory analyses of air filters and other media, as
well as all calibrations, are closely controlled in compliance with the NAREL Quality
Management Plan and applicable Standard Operating Procedures (EPA Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air, National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory Quality Management Plan
Revision 1, dated March 15, 2001 and reaffirmed August 23, 2006).
Data Quality Review: The database will screen all incoming data from the monitoring systems
for abnormalities as an indicator of either a contamination event or an instrument malfunction.
Data will be held in a secure portion of the database until verified by trained personnel. Copies
of quality assurance and quality control testing will also be maintained to assure the quality of
the data.
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will use data from the enhanced RadNet
ambient air radiation monitoring system.
892
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Time to approve site changes affecting waste characterization at DOE waste
generator sites to ensure safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at WIPP
Performance Database: Internal Database
Data Source: EPA has established a range of baseline data from existing records that indicate
the date(s) of the EPA site inspection and the EPA approval date for waste streams and waste
characterization equipment. EPA will measure the time between the DOE request for
approval/notification of change (or the date of the inspection, if applicable) to the date of EPA
approval, disapproval or concurrence of the change.
Methods and Assumptions: Under the new requirements of 40 CFR Part 194.8, EPA will
perform a baseline inspection of each DOE waste generator site. If all requirements are met, EPA
will approve the site's waste characterization program and assign tiers, based on abilities
demonstrated during the baseline inspection. DOE will inform EPA of changes in the waste
characterization program that can affect the quality of the data required by EPA to ensure the
disposal regulations are met. The tiering protocol, which applies to waste streams, equipment,
and procedures, will require DOE to either notify EPA of changes to the waste characterization
program prior to implementation of the change (Tier 1) or to notify EPA of the changes upon
implementation (Tier 2). For Tier 1 changes, EPA may request additional information or conduct
an inspection prior to issuing an approval.
EPA assumes that adequate resources commensurate with the workload (which varies by up to 3
fold on an annual basis) are available and that sufficiently qualified EPA personnel and
contractor consultants are available.
Suitability: This measure provides key information about the time required for EPA to approve
DOE's request to dispose of transuranic waste at the WIPP site.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow Agency
guidelines and be consistent with EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Quality Management
Plan Revision, dated October 2004.
Data Quality Review: N/A
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
893
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
References: The Department of Energy National TRU Waste Management Plan Quarterly
Supplement http://www.wipp.energy.gov/shipments.htm contains information on the volumes of
waste that are received at the DOE WIPP.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Population covered by Radiation Protection Program monitors per million
dollars invested. (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: EPA database of RadNet program expansion. The percent of the U.S.
population covered is dependent on the number of monitors deployed and includes everyone in
the continental U.S. within 25 miles of an ambient radiation monitor. Dollars invested includes the
full budget of the Radiation Protection Program.
Data Source: The performance measurement data—percentage of U.S. population covered by
the program—will be calculated annually from operational records maintained at the National
Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory. These records are an inherent part of program
oversight and will not require special data collection efforts. U.S. population numbers are based
on the Census 2000 from the U.S. Census Bureau. Program dollars are based on the full budget
of the Radiation Protection Program, which will be retrieved from the EPA Financial Data
Warehouse. The costs and data points produced will be determined annually for the system as a
whole, including existing (legacy) monitors and new near real-time monitors.
Methods and Assumptions: This measure reflects the population covered (i.e., within 25 miles
of a monitor) under an expanded and more robust system of radiation monitoring and assessment
per program dollar. As such, it is a very conservative estimate of "coverage." In the event of a
radiological emergency, the enhanced radiological monitoring system would support a number of
response measures and activities that cover and apply to the population as a whole. This entails
complete mobilization of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Program and full
deployment of all monitoring capability, including up to 40 portable RadNet monitors. The
efficiency measure is defined as the total costs (including FTE) to run both the legacy and near
real-time systems, which will provide scientists, decision makers, and the public information on
ambient radiation levels in airborne particulates under normal conditions or during radiological
incidents. As real-time monitors are put into service, the efficiency of the system will increase
dramatically. Near real-time units produce reliable data each hour as opposed to twice weekly for
conventional (legacy) monitors, which are dependent on shipment and analysis time of samples.
Suitability: This measure provides key information about population covered (i.e., within 25
miles of a monitor) under an expanded and more robust system of radiation monitoring and
assessment per program dollar.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
894
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Data Quality Review: N/A
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 5
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas emissions
reduced in the buildings 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-CC>2 emissions baselines. A baseline is the
"business-as-usual" case without the impact of EPA's voluntary climate programs. Baseline data
for carbon emissions related to energy use comes from the Energy Information Agency (EIA)
and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model (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.
895
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 tracking 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.
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.
896
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
897
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 6
FY 2009 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: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database) and list
of recommendations from the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of: 1) overall progress toward
completing research goals, and 2) completion of distinct planned program outputs.
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, after which no changes are made. 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, Clean Air research program "planned" actions include the completion of
follow-up recommendations resulting 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. Additionally, completion rates of
research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
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
898
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Particulate Matter Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/pm.pdf
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Research PART Program Assessment,
available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10001137.2005.html
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of NAAQS program publications rated as highly cited papers (PART
Measure).
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Searches of Thomson Scientific's Web of Science and Scopus are conducted to
obtain "times cited" data for programs' publications. Analyses are completed using Thomson's
Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI
provides access to a unique and comprehensive compilation of essential science performance
statistics and science trends data derived from Thomson's databases.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For influence and impact measures, ESI employs both
total citation counts by field and cites per paper scores. The former reveals gross influence while
the latter shows weighted influence, also called impact. JCR is a recognized authority for
evaluating journals. It presents quantifiable statistical data that provide a systematic, objective
way to evaluate the world's leading journals and their impact and influence in the global research
community. The two key measures used in this analysis to assess the journals in which a
program's papers are published are the Impact Factor and Immediacy Index. The Impact Factor
is a measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a
particular year. The Impact Factor helps evaluate a journal's relative importance, especially
when compared to other journals in the same field.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Analyses do not capture citations within EPA regulations and other key
agency documents.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of
Research and Development's Particulate Matter Research Program, available at:
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publications/bibliometrics/dw bibliometric pm only 0907.pdf
899
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (PART Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on 1) self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals, and 2) spending data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Using an approach similar to Earned Value
Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned and
actual performance for each long-term goal (specifically, determining what percent of planned
program outputs were successfully completed on time), 2) determining the difference between
planned and actual cost for each long-term goal (specifically, determining the difference between
what the program actually spent and what it intended to spent), and 3) dividing the difference
between planned and actual performance by the difference between planned and actual cost.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Program activity costs are calculated through both actual and estimated costs
when activities are shared between programs. Performance data reflects only the key program
outputs, and does not include every activity completed by a program. Additionally, completion
rates of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Research PART Program Assessment,
available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10001137.2005.html.
900
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percent of the population served by community water systems that meet all applicable
health-based drinking water standards through approaches including effective treatment
and source water protection [PART measure]
• Percent of the population in Indian country served by community water systems that
receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards
[PART measure]
• Percent of person months during which community water systems provide drinking
water that meets all applicable health-based standards [PART measure]
• Percent of community water systems that meet all applicable health-based standards
through approaches that include effective treatment and source water protection [PART
measure]
• The percentage of community water systems that have undergone a sanitary survey
within the past three years (five years for outstanding performance). [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 health-based
drinking water regulations. The performance measures are based on the population served by
community water systems and the number of 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
901
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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: Data Quality Review: Routine data quality assurance and quality control
analysis of SDWIS by the Agency revealed a degree of non-reporting of violations of health-
based drinking water standards, and of violations of regulatory monitoring and reporting
requirements. As a result, the Agency is now tracking and quantifying the quality of data
reported to SDWIS/FED as part of the Agency's National Water Program Guidance. The
Agency will continue follow and update the Data Reliability Implementation/Action Plan. EPA
will continue to review the results of on-site data verification (and eDV) and initiate a discussion
with individual states concerning any potential discrepancies with the data reported to
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)
902
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
SDWIS/FED. The on-site DV will be conducted as described in the Data Verification Protocol.
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, trend 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,2 a software information system jointly designed by
2 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
903
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 or data systems
on other drinking water programs: 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. 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
* These are internal documents maintained by EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Please call 202-564-3751 for
further information.
904
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
• 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 http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm
• Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html
Web site addresses
• OGWDW Internet Site http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html and contains access
to the information systems and various guidance, manuals, tools, and reports.
• Sites of particular interest are:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html contains information for users to better
analyze the data, and
http ://www. epa. gov/safewater/sdwi sfed/sdwi s. htm contains reporting guidance, system
and user documentation and reporting tools for the SDWIS/FED system.
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Fund Utilization Rate for the DWSRF [PART measure]
• Number of additional projects initiating operations [PART measure]
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
905
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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 1999. 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 2009 Performance Measures:
• 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.
• Percentage of prohibited Class IV and high-priority, identified, potentially
endangering Class V wells closed or permitted in ground-water based source water
areas.
906
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Database: The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program is authorized
under Part C Sections 1422 -1426 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOW A). 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 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
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.
907
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC procedures include validation of information in 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:
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)
908
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water/UIC Program. Available on the website:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic.html
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent 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 To date, data to support this measure have come 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, 2005 data released in 2006).3
Data Source: The ISSC requests the data on approved acreages from shellfish producing states
and prepares reports. Survey responses are voluntary.
Methods and Assumptions: The methods used by the state programs to produce the data used
by the ISSC are based on the National Shellfish Sanitation Plan and Model Ordinance; the
operation of those state programs is overseen by the FDA.4
Suitability: As water quality conditions are maintained or improved, "approved" or
"conditionally approved" shellfish growing acres impacted by anthropogenic sources should not
decrease. This measure is not suitable for annual comparison, but as reports are issued
periodically by the ISSC, updates on progress can be provided. There is no other suitable
surrogate.
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.
909
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 Carolina. September 2006. (Amended March 2007)
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• 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).
910
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
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. A date for release of the Fourth National
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals has not been set, but current
expectation is that it will be published in summer 2008.
Methods and Assumptions: 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.
Suitability: This indicator was selected because it provides an indication of levels of exposure in
the human population to organic mercury where the main source is the consumption of fish and
shellfish contaminated with methylmercury. As consumers follow fish consumption advice,
changes in mercury in blood levels will decrease. This measure is not suitable for annual
comparison but the period reports form NHANES provides a direct measure of mercury in blood
levels in a representative sample of the US population.
911
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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:
1. 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 2009 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.
912
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 and Assumptions: 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 water bodies 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.
Suitability: This indicator is suitable as a performance measure because it captures the increased
incidence of outbreaks from recreational water contact due to poor water quality conditions.
Controlling sources of water contamination would result in maintaining or improving water
quality conditions, thereby avoiding an increase in outbreaks
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
913
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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,
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
914
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent 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
915
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.,
2008 calendar year data are used to report against FY 2009 commitments). For the 2006
swimming season, States and Territories monitored for pathogens at 3,771 coastal and Great
Lakes beaches. In re-evaluating their beach programs, several states combined small beaches into
larger beaches during 2006, reducing the total number of beaches monitored (from 4,025 in 2005
to 3,771 in 2006), but maintaining the scope of their programs.l
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 and Assumptions: 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.
Suitability: This indicator is suitable as a performance measure because it captures the
frequency of beach closings primarily due to poor water quality conditions. Controlling sources
of contamination would result in water quality improvement at beach thereby leading to fewer
closures.
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.
916
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the survey responses to ensure the information is complete,
following up with the state or local government to obtain additional information where needed.
The Agency also reviews the QA/QC reports submitted by States and Territories as part of their
grant reporting. There have been no external party reviews of this information.
Data Limitations: From calendar year 1997 to calendar year 2002, participation in the survey
and submission of data 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 3,771 of approximately 6,000 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. All coastal and
Great Lakes states and territories utilize the implementation grants.
Error Estimate: Not all coastal and Great Lakes beaches are monitored. In 2006, States and
Territories reported that they monitored at 3,771 of the approximately 6,000 coastal and Great
Lakes beaches. This monitoring varies between States. For example, North Carolina monitors
all its 243 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 day.6 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 2009, EPA expects
all 35 coastal and Great Lakes states to again apply for grants to implement monitoring and
notification programs.
References:
1. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's Beach Report: 2006 Swimming Season." EPA-823-R-
917
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
07-005. Washington, DC, May 2007. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2006
2. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for
Grants." EPA-823-B-02-004. Washington DC: EPA, June 2002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/guidance/all.pdf
3. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "A Quality Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001.
Washington, DC: EPA, July 2002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/water/programs/qmpjuly2002.pdf
4. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 2002 Swimming Season."
EPA-823-F-03-007. Washington, DC, May 2003. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/beachwatch2003-newformat.pdf
5. Leecaster. M.K. and S.B. Weisberg, Effect of Sampling Frequency on Shoreline Microbiology
Assessments, Marine Pollution Bulletin., 42(11), 2001.
6. Boehm, A.B., et. al., Decadal and Shorter Period Variability of Surf Zone Water Quality at
Huntington Beach, California, Environmental Science and Technology, 36(18), 2002.
7. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. "The EMPACT Beaches Project, Results
and Recommendations from a Study on Microbiological Monitoring In Recreational Waters."
EPA 600/9-02/xxx. Washington, DC, Sept. 2002. (Draft Report).
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of waters assessed using statistically valid surveys [PART Annual
Measure]
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
918
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
919
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
QA/QC Procedures: Collection and processing of all samples are described in QAPP and Field
Protocols documents associated with each survey. In addition, the QAPP will contain specific
Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) and Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) associated with
each survey. To ensure that the survey is obtaining the DQOs and MQOs, there are several QA
steps built into each survey. Training for all crew members is required before sampling begins.
Field evaluations are conducted for all crews to ensure methods are being followed. Each
laboratory involved in the sample processing will adhere to the specified laboratory protocols
and undergo a thorough and documented quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process.
Submitted data will undergo a final QC check before analysis begins.
Data Quality Reviews: A 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
STORET database website. http://www.epa.gov/STORET/index.html.
920
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 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 Long-term
and Annual Measure]
• Remove the specific causes of waterbody impairment identified by States in 2002
• Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds nationwide using the
watershed approach
• Cost per water segment restored [PART Annual efficiency]
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/) is used to generate reports that identify waters that are not
meeting water quality standards ("impaired waters") and that need one or more TMDLs to be
developed. EPA combined this information with information and comment from EPA Regions
and States, on other impaired waters (those for which TMDLs have been completed but are not
yet meeting standards) to create the baseline data for these measures. As discussed below under
"New and Improved Data Systems," EPA is creating a single database that will track all the
impaired waters in the baseline for these measures.
There are several reasons why EPA or states may determine that specific water bodies listed as
impaired in 2002, the baseline year, are no longer impaired in the reporting year. For example,
water quality might improve due to EPA or state actions to reduce point and nonpoint source
discharges of pollutants. In other cases, a state or EPA might conduct more robust monitoring
studies and use these data to complete more accurate assessments of water quality conditions. In
some cases, a state might modify its water quality standards, in accordance with EPA's
regulations, to update scientific criteria or to better reflect the highest attainable conditions for its
waters. Each of these examples represents a case where a formerly impaired water no longer
may be found to exceed water quality standards. Any such removals of water body impairments
will be recorded based on reports from states scheduled every two years through 2012.
EPA's measure that tracks the improvement of water quality conditions utilizes the information
on impairments described above and incorporates two additional features: 12-digit hydrologic
921
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
unit code (HUC) boundaries and data on "watershed-wide water quality improvement." In 2007
(with some most current work in 2008), 12-digit HUC code watersheds will be completed,
certified and stored on USDA's comprehensive website for HUC watershed information (see
http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/index.html). EPA's $1.1M +
investment in boundary delineation and partner investments has ensured that all boundaries
needed for EPA strategic plan reporting will be completed prior to reporting deadlines. Data on
water quality improvements (e.g., a 20% reduction in nitrogen levels) will be documented via the
extensive process laid out in computational guidance for this measure and for the measures on
water quality standards and waterbody impairment (see
http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/documents/subobjective2_2_l.pdf)
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 of www.epa.gov/nps/success, and only after
uploaded is it counted towards this measure.
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
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 and 2007, 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.
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)
922
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 (STORE!) 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
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) Program3', the March 15, 2000 Government Accounting Office report Water Quality:
Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data4., the 2001 National Academy of
3 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).
4 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)
923
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Sciences Report Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management5 and EPA 's
Draft Report on the Environment6
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)7 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 )8which 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
Practices9 (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.
5 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
6 US EPA, Draft Report on the Environment 2003. EPA 260-R-02-006 (2003). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm
7 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
8 USEPA, 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
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/cahn.html
924
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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).10 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 General11 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.
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
10 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
11 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.
925
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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. In 2008, EPA plans to
make a web data entry tool available for users who 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,
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.
926
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.htm.
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 ffaters. 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 2009 Performance Measures;
• Number of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on a
schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative) [PART annual measure]
• Number of TMDLs that are established by States and approved by EPA [State TMDLs]
on a schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative) [PART annual measure]
927
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Note: Because a TMDL is a plan for attaining water quality standards, the terms 'approved'
and 'established' refer to the completion of the TMDL itself and not necessarily its
implementation.
Performance Database: The Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking
And ImplementatioN System (ATTAINS) is a database which will capture water quality
information related to this measure. This database is an upgrade to the existing National TMDL
Tracking System (NTTS). ATTAINS will be 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. 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. 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-submitted TMDLs and for which EPA has established
TMDLs. Annual TMDL totals, spanning 1996 to the present, are available from ATTAINS 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." Newly attaining 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 these measures. 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 ATTAINS 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 the Water
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).
928
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Data Quality Review: Internal reviews of data quality have revealed some inconsistencies in
the methodology of data entry between EPA Regional Offices. 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 an ATTAINS design team is currently directing the database upgrades. One of
the issues raised included the methodology used to count TMDLs. Previous methodology
generated a TMDL "count" based on the causes of impairment removed from the 303(d)
impaired waters list as well as the TMDL pollutant. EPA proposed to change the counting
methodology to directly reflect only the pollutants given allocations in TMDLs. During a recent
EPA Office of the Inspector General review they concurred with this recommendation. This
proposed change was vetted during the TMDL Program's annual meeting in March 2007 and
implemented in August 2007, resulting in a cumulative net reduction of 1,577 TMDLs. Current
realization of targets shows the TMDL Program continues to attain PART and Strategic Plan
targets despite the adjustment to the counting methodology.
Data Limitations: To meet the increasing need for readily accessible CWA information, EPA is
both upgrading the current database and overseeing quality review of existing data. In the
process of developing the new database existing data entry requirements and procedures are
being reevaluated and communicated with data entry practitioners. Data quality has been
improving and will continue to improve during this overhaul.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is currently available for these data.
New/Improved Data Systems: See above.
References:
USEPA, Office of the Inspector General. 2007. Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs
Better Data and Measures to Demonstrate Environmental Results. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070919-2007-P-00036.pdf.
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.
Link to TMDL report data can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/
Link to the Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System (WATERS) can be
found at: http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/expert query.html
929
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance at any time
during the fiscal year (PART measure)
• 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.
930
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 is 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 1980s 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.
References:
PCS information is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.htm
FY 2009 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.
931
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and 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 and Assumptions:
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
932
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 any qualifying submissions from May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2009,
that were approved by September 30, 2009, 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 or FY
2009.
Suitability: These two performance measures provide important information about how well
EPA and states/territories are carrying out their respective roles and responsibilities for
establishing and approving up-to-date scientifically defensible WQS. The first measure
describes how well EPA and states/territories are working together to set revised WQS that EPA
can approve in a timely fashion. The second measure provides an indicator of how well states'
WQS reflect latest scientific data.
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
933
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 is planning to enhance
the existing WATA system to improve its capabilities and data quality.
References:
USEPA. September 13, 2006. 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_05/40cfrl3l_05.html.
USEPA. August 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook, 2nd edition.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/.
934
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Estimated annual reduction of nitrogen (millions of pounds), phosphorous (millions
of pounds), and sediment (tons) from nonpoint sources to waterbodies. [PART
Annual Measure]
Performance Database: The Section 319 Grants 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.
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,
935
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
936
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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)(ll) and 319(m)(l) require States to report their Nonpoint Source
Management Program (NPSMP) milestones, nonpoint source pollutant load reductions, and
water quality improvements. 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
937
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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.
References: USEPA. Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and
Territories. October 23, 2003 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/cwact.html).
USEPA. Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants.
September 27, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/cwact.html).
USEPA. GRTS. Grants Tracking and Reporting System. GRTS Web User Guide, Version 1.6
March 15, 2007.
USEPA. WATERS. Watershed Assessment Tracking and Environmental Results.
(http://www.epa.gov/waters/).
938
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
USEPA. NHDPlus. National Hydrography Dataset Plus (http://www.horizon-
sy stem s. com/nhdplu s/).
USEPA. STORET. Storage and Retrieval (http://www.epa.gov/storet/dbtop.htmn.
USEPA. NAD. National Assessment Database (http ://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/).
USEPA. WQSDB. Water Quality Standards Database (http://www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase/).
USEPA. STEPL. Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (http://it.tetratech-
ffx.com/stepl/).
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of high priority EPA and State NPDES permits that are reissued on
schedule (PART Measure)
• Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits reissued on schedule (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.
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
939
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 key 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 key 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.
940
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• 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
941
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 Progress 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
2004 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
Economic 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 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.cfm7program id=6&view=allprog&sort=name
942
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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.
943
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 base]. (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].
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF [PART annual measure]
Performance Database: Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management
System (NIMS.)
Data Sources: Data are from reporting by municipal and other facility operators, state
regulatory agency personnel and by EPA's regional staff. Data are collected and reported once
yearly.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into NEVIS are the units of performance.
These data are suitable for year-to-year comparison and trend indication.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's headquarters and regional offices are responsible for compiling the
data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and conformance with expected trends.
States receive data entry guidance from EPA headquarters in the form of annual memoranda. A
generic memorandum would be titled: "Request for Annual Update of Data for the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund National Information Management System, July 1, 200X through June 30,
200X."
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's headquarters and regional offices annually review the data
submitted by the states. These state data are publicly available at
944
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf in individual state reports. EPA's headquarters
addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through the appropriate EPA
regional office. An annual EPA headquarters' "N IMS Analysis" provides detailed data
categorization and comparison. This analysis is used during annual EPA regional office and state
reviews to identify potential problems which might affect the performance measure, biennial
reviews by EPA's headquarters of regional oversight of state revolving funds and, annual
reviews by EPA's regional offices of their states' revolving funds operations.
State data quality is also evaluated during annual audits performed by independent auditors or by
the appropriate regional office of the EPA Inspector General. These audits are incorporated into
EPA headquarters' financial management system.
Data Limitations: There are no known limitations in the performance data, which states submit
voluntarily. Erroneous data can be introduced into the NEVIS database by typographic or
definitional error. Typographic errors are controlled and corrected through data testing
performed by EPA's contractor. Definitional errors due to varying interpretations of information
requested for specific data fields have been virtually eliminated in the past two years as a result
of EPA headquarters' clarification of definitions. These definitions are publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf. There is typically a lag of approximately two months
from the date EPA asks states to enter their data into the 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/cwfinance/cwsrf
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NIMS is available at:
http ://www. epa. gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
The Office of Water Quality Management Plan, July 2001 (approved September 28, 2001)
addresses the quality of data in NEVIS. Not publicly available.
945
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of waterbodies restored or improved per million dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided. (PART efficiency measure)
• Number of waterbodies protected per million dollars of CWSRF assistance
provided. (PART efficiency 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
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 2007, the environmental benefits of $13.4 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.
946
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
References:
Definitions of data requested for each data field in the CBR database are 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 2009 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), managed by 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 information on water and wastewater projects in 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
947
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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.
948
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
References:
1. Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Criteria for the
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program, June 1999, Version 1.02, 3/13/2003.
http://www.dsfc. ihs.gov/Docum ents/Criteria_March_2003.cfm
2. Indian Health Service (IHS), Division of Sanitation Facilities (DSFC). Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS), Working Draft, "Guide for Reporting Sanitation Deficiencies for
Indian Homes and Communities", May 2003.
http://www.dsfc.ihs.gov/Documents/SDSWorkingDraft2003.pdf
FY 2009 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.
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
949
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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: Initial reporting in FY 2007 did not indicate that any
improvements to the collection and/or evaluation of data to support the measure were needed.
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/earth 1 r6/6pd/qa/qatools.htm
EPA Region 9 - http://www.epa.gov/region9/qa/pdfs/qaprp_guidance3.pdf
EPA Region 10 - http://www.epa.gov/qualitv/qs-docs/g5-final.pdf
950
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2009 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 delivered in support of WQRP long-term goal #1:
the protection of human health and ecosystems as related to designated uses for
aquatic systems and the beneficial use of biosolids long-term goal (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of WQRP long-term goal #2:
diagnostics and forecasting techniques for the protection of human health and
ecosystems as related to designated uses for aquatic systems and the beneficial use of
biosolids long-term goal (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the WQRP long-term goal #3:
1) restore impaired aquatic systems, 2) protect unimpaired systems, 3) provide
human health risk and treatment process information on the beneficial use of
biosolids, and 4) forecast the ecologic, economic, and human health benefits of
alternative approaches to attaining water quality standards (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database)
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of completion of planned program
outputs.
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, after which no changes are made. 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
951
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
reviews are used to measure research quality and impact. Additionally, completion rates of
research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
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
Water Quality Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/wq.pdf
Drinking Water Research Program PART Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10004371.2005.html
Water Quality Research Program PART Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10004306.2006.html
FY 2009 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
952
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
References: EPA's Peer Review Handbook, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/peerreview/pdfs/Peer%20Review%20HandbookMay06.pdf
Water Quality Research Program PART Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10004306.2006.html
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on 1) self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals, and 2) spending data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Using an approach similar to Earned Value
Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned and
actual performance for each long-term goal (specifically, determining what percent of planned
program outputs were successfully completed on time), 2) determining the difference between
planned and actual cost for each long-term goal (specifically, determining the difference between
what the program actually spent and what it intended to spent), and 3) dividing the difference
between planned and actual performance by the difference between planned and actual cost.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Program activity costs are calculated through both actual and estimated costs
when activities are shared between programs. Performance data reflects only the key program
outputs, and does not include every activity completed by a program. Additionally, completion
rates of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Water Quality Research Program PART Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10004306.2006.html
953
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste [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.
954
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Pounds of MSW recycled related to EPA recycling efforts over total EPA recycling
dollars and FTE [PART efficiency-under development]
Performance Database: Data are provided by EPA and the Department of Commerce.
Data Source: National estimates 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.
Additional Agency performance data include: total pounds recycled in a year attributable to EPA
FTE and contract funds as reported in EPA's Annual Commitment System (ACS), recycling
achievements in EPA's recycling partnership programs, as well as the total cost to the Agency
including annual recycling dollars, and FTE for HQ and the Regions.
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.
955
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
EPA's new long-term 2011 measure focuses on the total pounds of recycling that EPA influences
in the United States. EPA helps to increase the amount of materials recycled through its
educational materials, technical support, direct assistance, and through recycling partnership
programs such as Waste Wise, GreenScapes and Recycling on the Go. EPA's new long-term
measure focuses on the Agency's recycling achievements by attributing a certain percentage of
the pounds recycled in its recycling partnership programs to Agency pollution prevention efforts,
counting 100% the total pounds recycled through its grants and projects supported by Agency
FTE and contract funds as reported in ACS, and adding an additional 10% of the total national
pounds recycled as an estimate of EPA's influence on national recycling rate. In addition, the
new MSW efficiency measure focuses on EPA costs, both extramural dollars and FTE. By
focusing on the Agency's specific contributions to recycling, this will more accurately represent
EPA's efficiency.
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.
EPA's budget information and partnership programs data are subject to EPA's QA/QC
procedures.
Data Quality Review: The "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States"
report, including the baseline numbers and annual rates of recycling and per capita municipal
solid waste generation, is widely accepted among solid waste 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.
In addition, the new measure is contingent upon collection of accurate and up-to-date
information from the recycling partnership programs.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) does not collect data on
estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The new long-term measure represents EPA's
accomplishments in promoting recycling.
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.
956
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Number of hazardous waste facilities with new controls or updated controls.
[PART measure]
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: Data are mainly entered by the states and can be entered directly into RCRAInfo,
although some choose to use a different program and then "translate" the information into
RCRAInfo. Supporting documentation and reference materials are maintained in Regional and
state files.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RCRAInfo, the national database which supports
EPA's RCRA program, contains information on entities (genetically referred to as "handlers")
engaged in hazardous waste generation and management activities regulated under the portion of
RCRA that provides for regulation of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo has several different modules,
including status of RCRA facilities in the RCRA permitting universe.
QA/QC Procedures: States and EPA's Regional offices generate the data and manage data
quality related to timeliness and accuracy. Within RCRAInfo, the application software contains
structural controls that promote the correct entry of the high-priority national components.
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. 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 facility has approved controls in place is based primarily on the legal and
957
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 updated controls is based on the permit
expiration date code. We have discussed the need for correct entry with the Regions.
During 2008, we plan to update the baseline for tracking in FY09 and beyond. The updates are
anticipated to be minimal. New reports should be developed in RCRAInfo in FY08 in order to
better track FY09 goals.
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 updated controls are intended to apply to the
facilities that are "due for permit renewals," but we anticipate that there will be some facilities
that cease to be "due for permit renewals" because of a change in facility status.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently OSW does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: 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
958
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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. New reporting capabilities have been added in FY07.
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).
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• No more than 10,000 confirmed releases per year
• Increase the rate of significant operational compliance by 1% of the previous year's
target
• Annual confirmed releases per annual underground storage tanks leak prevention cost
[PART Efficiency]
Performance Database: The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) does not maintain a
national database. States individually maintain records for reporting state program
accompli shments.
Data Source: Designated state agencies submit semi-annual progress reports to the EPA
Regional offices. For the PART Efficiency Performance Measure, OUST will estimate the value
of this efficiency measure based on data that EPA and state agencies currently collect and
maintain. The data includes the states' semi-annual activity reports, which track the number of
releases confirmed each year and the number of active underground storage tanks; funding for
leak prevention and matching expenditure of 25 percent for every dollar of leak prevention
funding the states receive; and EPA's prevention program administration costs, such as salary,
travel expenses, contracts and working capital funds.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: For the semi-annual activity report data, 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. For
the PART Efficiency Measure, FY 2007 was the baseline for implementation and QA/QC
procedures are not yet in place.
Data Quality Review: None.
959
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Data Limitations: For the semi-annual activity report, 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: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum, FY 2007 End-of-Year
Activity Report., from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks to
UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10, dated December 5, 2007,
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca 07 34.pdf.
FY 2009 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 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 the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency (EIA), the
Portland Cement Association and other publicly available trade association data. A limited
amount of data relevant to recycling has been reported on EIA Form 767, which was
discontinued in 2007. These data will likely be collected on a different EIA form in the future.
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.
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.
960
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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: New or additional measurement techniques will need to be
developed for 2007 data and beyond based on the development of new EIA forms to track
generation and recycling.
References: The American Coal Ash Annual Survey is located at http://www.acaa-usa.org/.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
* Number of facilities with new or updated controls per million dollars of program
cost [PART efficiency]
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
961
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently OSW does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: No new efforts to improve the data or methodology have
been identified
References: Federal Document Management System www.regulations.gov; Budget Automation
Management System
962
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 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: EPA's regional offices, in collaboration with the Indian Health Service
(IHS), report annually the performance data to the WSTARS database.
Data Source: EPA and the Indian Health Service are co-sponsors of the Tribal Solid Waste
Management Assistance Project. 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 IHS WSTARS data are reported voluntarily by federally recognized
tribal members. The member tribal data are extrapolated to generate national estimates, per the
request from Congress.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Tribal Solid Waste Management Assistance
Project is a national program that began in 2001 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.
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 accurate
assumptions can be made about the numbers of open dumps and the solid waste management
plans generated, the data may be extrapolated to estimate the total open dumps and solid waste
management plans for the federally recognized tribes within the United States. The data,
however, may be limited in certain regions of the country, making extrapolations to a national
statistic inaccurate.
963
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 IHS website at www.ihs.gov.
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2009 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.
Prevention and preparedness expenditures are tracked in the Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS), the Agency's financial database.
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
extracted by EPA HQ from IFMS.
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.
964
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 should 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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Score in annual Core Emergency Response assessment
Performance Database: No specific database has been developed. Data from evaluations from
each of the 10 Regions are tabulated and stored using standard software (e.g., Word
spreadsheets).
Data Source: Data are collected through detailed surveys of all Regional programs, as well as
HQ offices and Special Teams of responders; the process includes 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
965
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
demonstrate an increased ability to respond quickly and effectively to national-scale events. The
FY 2009 Core ER target is to improve emergency response and homeland security readiness by
10 points from the FY 2008 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, Special Teams, 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 staff or group will be responsible for gathering and analyzing all
the data to determine the overall score for each Regional office, Special Teams 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
966
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
important element of objectivity in each review; the scores will be developed by a team looking
across all ten Regions, Special Teams, 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: None.
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of final Superfund site assessment decisions [PART performance]
• Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control [PART performance]
• Number of 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 ready for anticipated use site-wise
• Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control per million dollars
obligated [PART efficiency]
• Program dollars expended annually per operable unit completing cleanup activities
[Federal Facilities PART efficiency measure].
• Voluntary removal actions overseen by EPA and completed [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]
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.
967
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Methods and Assumptions: Except for financial information, each performance measure is a
specific variable entered into CERCLIS following specific coding guidance and corresponding
supporting site-specific documentation.
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. Site-specific obligation data
are derived using query logic that evaluates the Site/Project field of the IFMS account number.
Suitability: The Superfund Remedial Program's performance measures for FY 2009 are the
result of several years of refinement with OMB as follow-up to the Program's 2004 PART
Review. The measures currently used to demonstrate program progress reflect several major
milestones that reflect site cleanup progress from start (final assessment decision) to finish (sites
ready for anticipate use). Each measure marks a significant step in ensuring human health and
environment protection at Superfund sites. OMB has accepted these measures for monitoring
program performance on an annual basis.
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, data 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 2008/2009 (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim08.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 2100.5
(http://www.epa.gOv/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf); 2) the Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
968
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
(http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/pdf/oswerqtnp.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/Securitv7OpenView). 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.
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 that
supports 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).
969
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
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 the FY04/05 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, Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites
(GAO/RECD-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, estimates that the cleanup status of National
Priority List sites reported by CERCLIS is accurate for 95 percent of the sites. The OIG report,
Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30,
2002, states that over 40 percent of CERCLIS data on site actions reviewed was inaccurate or not
adequately supported. Although the 11 recommendations were helpful and improved some
controls over CERCLIS data, the Agency disagreed and strongly objected to the study design
and report conclusions.
New/Improved Data or Systems: As a result of a modernization effort completed in 2004,
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. 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. Information developed and
gathered in the modernization effort is being used as a valuable resource for scoping the future
redesign of CERCLIS. The redesign is necessary to bring CERCLIS into alignment with the
Agency's mandated Enterprise Architecture. The first major step in this effort was the migration
970
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
of all 10 Regional databases and the Headquarters database into one single national database at
the National Computing Center in RTF. The Superfund Document Management System
(SDMS) has also migrated to RTF to improve efficiency and storage capacity. During this
migration the SDMS was linked to CERCLIS which enable users to easily transition between
programmatic accomplishments as reported in CERCLIS and the actual document that defines
and describes the accomplishments. EPA Headquarters is also evaluating the need and increased
functionality of an integrated SDMS-CERCLIS system. Tentatively that system is called the
Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS). Work on SEMS has started in FY 2007 and
will continue through FY 2009.
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 was
released in CERCLIS in June of 2007 to support two new performance measures.
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/policy/guidance.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 2100.5
(http://www.epa.gOv/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf). 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/Securitv7OpenView).
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)
All referenced internet addressed were last accessed on 07/31/07.
971
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins under control.
• Number of RCRA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under
control.
• Number of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed.
• Percent increase of final remedy components constructed at RCRA corrective action
facilities per federal, state and private sector costs. [PART efficiency measure]
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database that supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: The states and Regions enter data. A "High", "Medium", or "Low" entry is made
in the database with respect to final assessment decision. A "yes" or "no" 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.
Remedies selected and complete constructions of remedies measure are 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
972
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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/fdip/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
973
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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/studv/studyhtm.html).
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
» 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]
Performance Database: The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) does not maintain a
national database. States individually maintain records for reporting state program
accompli shments.
Data Source: Designated State agencies submit semi-annual progress reports to the EPA
regional offices.
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
974
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum, FY 2007 End-of-Year
Activity Report., from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks to
UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10, dated December 5, 2007,
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca 07 34.pdf.
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Refer to DOJ, settle, or write off 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)
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: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management
Plan, approved October 2, 2007. To ensure data accuracy and control, the following
975
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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, data 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 2008/2009 (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim08.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 2100.5
(http://www.epa.gOv/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf); 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
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan,
approved October 2, 2007.
976
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 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 completion of planned program
outputs.
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, after which no changes
are made. 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. Additionally, completion rates of research outputs
are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
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
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/rcra.pdf
Land Protection and Restoration Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10004305.2006.html
977
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 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 technical support centers' tracking of timeliness in
meeting customer needs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The dates of requests, due dates, response time, and
customer outcome feedback are 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: Land Protection and Restoration Research PART Program Assessment, available
at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10004305.2006.html
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2009 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. These steps within the validation process include: detailed review papers
completed, prevalidation studies completed, validation by multiple labs completed, peer reviews,
and the cumulative number of assays that have been validated.
978
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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). The baseline for this measure is zero assays validated (FY 2005).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measure is a program output which when
finalized, helps 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. The measure represents the ultimate objective of this program (e.g.,
validating assays for use in screening and testing chemicals for potential endocrine effects, as
required by FQPA.)
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
979
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Contract cost reduction per study for assay validation efforts in the Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program. (PART Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: EPA will measure the contract cost reduction per study for assay
validation efforts in the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) by comparing the cost
per study from a previous contract to the cost of a newer multiple awards contract. The newer
multiple awards contract involves competition for individual work assignments among two
vendors in an effort to provide increased flexibility in both the economic and scientific aspects of
the contract. In addition, assays that have now been standardized may be competed on a fixed
price, rather than level of effort basis, which will lead to reduced costs for the government.
This efficiency measure must be used in conjunction with the program's annual performance
measure (cumulative number of assays validated) to obtain a complete picture of program
performance. This is consistent with OMB's direction during the FY06 PART review of EPA's
Endocrine Program - to have efficiency measures and annual performance measures, that when
taken together, give a full picture of the program.
Data Source: Information will be obtained from contract documents and stored in spreadsheets
by OSCP personnel responsible for managing the contracts.
Methods and Assumptions: The baseline average cost per study was calculated based on
contract costs from a previous EDSP contract. A laboratory study was defined as conduct of an
assay with a single chemical in a single lab, and represents standardized study costs based on a
mix of in vitro and in vivo studies, as well as detail review papers. The baseline average cost per
study was $62,175 in 2006. The measure of efficiency will be based on similar data from the
newer multiple award contract and judged based on the target of a 1% cost reduction per year for
three (3) years.
Suitability: The majority of funds allocated to the EDSP are spent on laboratory studies
conducted by contractors. As a result, a measure based on the contract costs is a suitable
measure of efficiency for this program.
QA/QC Procedures: Costs for products generated by scientific labs are used for this efficiency
measure. OPPT's Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP) maintains spreadsheets to
980
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
track contract expenditures by study. These spreadsheets are periodically checked against
contract records and EPA contracts databases (i.e., Data Financial Warehouse).
Data Quality Review: Data generated from these spreadsheets, for the purposes of this
efficiency measure, will be independently reviewed for accuracy before submitting information
on this measure.
Data Limitations: In general, 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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Millions 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
981
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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):
University of Georgia Entomology Dept, (www.ent.uga.edu/IPM/slOO/household.htm): National
Pest Management Association.
(www.pestworld.org/Database/Article.asp? ArticleID=34&User Type]:
"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).
982
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 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 (USDA) 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
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 billion13 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
13 The value received by farmers was $200 billion.
983
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 (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:
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). Agricultural Chemical Usage.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do? documentID=l 001
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). Agricultural Statistics, http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agstats.htm
984
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 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 land use 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
(http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/rep/qcsummary/and
http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/index.html).
985
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 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.
986
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 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
987
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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*
988
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
* = 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:
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
989
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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 11092005.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
990
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 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.
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 actions contribute significantly
to the reduction.
991
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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.
992
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 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 50l 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.
993
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
uses. NCHS strives to meet the needs for access to its data while maintaining appropriate
safeguards for the confidentiality of individual responses.
994
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 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
995
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Agreement (IAG) with OPP. The data will be collected annually through the end-of-year report
under the Interagency Agreement (IAG). 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
996
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Reduce 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. Eventually, Pesticide
Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) data will be included. 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 performance data are the acres impacted by the project verses the
amount of grant or contract funds.
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
997
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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,
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 likely 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,
funding and managing this kind of sample survey will be a challenge.
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 are 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
998
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Register reduced-risk pesticides, including biopesticides
• New Chemicals (Active Ingredients)
• New Uses
• Percent reduction in review time for registration of conventional pesticides (Long-
term PART efficiency measure)
• Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Decisions
Performance Database: The OPPIN/PRISM (Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Network/Pesticide Registration Information System) 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/PRISM, 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. SI8 timeliness was 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
999
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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/PRISM (Office of Pesticide Programs
Information Network/Pesticide Registration Information System), 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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Product Reregistration
Performance Database: The OPPIN/PRISM (Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Network/Pesticide Registration Information System) 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/PRISM, manual counts are
also maintained by the office on the reregi strati on decisions. Decisions are logged in as the
action is completed, both for final decisions and interim decisions.
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
1000
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN/PRISM, 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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of agricultural acres treated 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.
1001
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 Doane 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.
1002
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Annual number of chemicals with proposed Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
(AEGLs) values. (PART measure)
Performance Database: Performance is measured by the annual number of chemicals with
"Proposed" AEGL values as recorded in the AEGL Chemical Status sans Structure Access 2000
database containing the approval dates for proposed AEGL values. The results are calculated on
a fiscal year basis.
Data Source: EPA manages a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that reviews
short term exposure values for extremely hazardous chemicals. The supporting data, from both
published and unpublished sources and from which the AEGL values are derived, are collected,
evaluated, and summarized by FACA Chemical Managers and Oak Ridge National Laboratory's
scientists. Proposed AEGL values are published for public comment in the Federal Register.
After reviewing public comment, interim values are presented to the AEGL Subcommittee of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for review and comment. After review and comment
resolution, the National Research Council under the auspices of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) publishes the values as final. 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 and Assumptions: 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, has 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 number of AEGL values approved as "proposed" by the NAC/AEGL
1003
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FACA Committee represents the measure of performance. The data meet the standards in the
QMP and the outcomes are reviewed by senior management.
Suitability: This output measure supports the long term goal of assigning proposed Acute
Exposure Guideline Levels for all priority chemicals by 2011.
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. QA/QC procedures, specific to AEGLs, 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: Not applicable. The counts used as a basis for this measure are fully
transparent.
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. Once completed, this new database should enhance the efficiency
of AEGL development.
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent reduction from baseline year in total EPA cost per chemical for which
Proposed AEGL value sets are developed (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: OPPT maintains records on AEGL program income, expenditures and
carryover from one year to the next, and on the number of FTEs allocated to the program.
Information from these records is aggregated to determine total EPA cost per chemical for which
1004
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
a proposed AEGL data set is tracked through a GPRA and Budget Accomplishment Word
document. The denominator of the measure - number of proposed AEGL value sets - is tracked
using the AEGL Chemical Status sans Structure Access 2000 database containing the approval
dates for proposed AEGL values.
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 and Assumptions: The methods involved in developing and reporting on this
performance measure consist of simple computational steps performed on data relating to AEGL
cost and accomplishment. For these computational steps it is necessary to track the number of
FTEs 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 files, multiplying an
appropriate percentage estimating 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 the appropriate percentage is used to reasonably estimate
the proposal stage's share of total cost devoted to AEGLs. Targets are based on what is
considered reasonable and achievable.
The data used to estimate this performance measure represent all the costs for developing a
proposed AEGL value set and are the most acceptable for this requirement. The data meet the
standards in the QMP and the outcomes are reviewed by senior management.
Suitability: The indicators used for this measure are suitable because reductions in cost per
AEGL value are expected to result from improvements in program implementation. These cost
reductions will enable EPA to achieve the goals of the AEGL program with greater efficiency.
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. Specific QA/QC procedures for AEGL development include
1005
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 QA/QC controls.
Data Quality Review: 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. Once completed, this new database should enhance the efficiency
of AEGL development.
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 2009 Performance Measures:
» Number of cases of children aged 1-5 years with elevated blood lead levels (> 10 ug/dL)
(PART 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.
(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 are currently released to the public in two year sets. Blood lead levels are
1006
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals was released July 2005, and is
available at the Web site http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. The Fourth National Exposure
report is expected in the summer of 2008.
Methods and Assumptions: 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. The
NHANES data directly estimate the values included in the two performance measures and are
nationally recognized as the best source of this data. This data source measures blood levels in
the same units (i.e., ug/dL) and at standard detection limits.
Suitability: The first measure supports the long-term goal of eliminating childhood lead
poisoning as a public health concern by the year 2010. Data are collected on a calendar year
basis and released to the public in two-year data sets. Data as of May 2005 reflecting 1999-2002
results, demonstrate progress towards the EPA's long-term target.
The second measure examines the disparities of blood lead levels in low-income children
compared to non low-income children and uses this measure to track progress towards EPA's
long-term goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning in harder to reach vulnerable
populations.
1007
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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/maj or/nhanes/nhanes2003-2004/analvtical 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/maj or/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 Third
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Web site,
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/: 3) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (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/maj or/nhanes/nhanes2003 -
2004/analvtical guidelines.htm.
1008
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Annual percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that
require less than 20 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
including final decisions and the multiple steps in the process used for measurement. The
database is augmented by hard copy records of the original applications. EPA uses an Oracle
Discoverer application to query the database to collect measurable performance data.
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 and Assumptions: Each complete application for certification or accreditation in
Federally-managed states and tribal lands is processed (approximately 3000 per year).
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 is periodically conducted, and the
percentage of applications that took more than the prescribed number of days (e.g., 20) of EPA
effort to process is computed based on this census. The census is conducted every six months,
and the annual percentage calculated appropriately from the six month percentages. The data
used to estimate this performance measure directly reflect all information that has been recorded
pertaining to certification applications and are the most acceptable for this requirement. The data
meet the standards in the QMP and the outcomes are reviewed by senior management.
Suitability: This measure tracks EPA Headquarters and Regional effort in processing lead-
based paint certification and refund applications. This measure reflects an integral part of the
Lead Program and ensures proper training for lead-based professionals. Data are available mid-
1009
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
year and end-of-year and enable the program to demonstrate program efficiencies and enhance
accountability.
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. In addition, 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
internal quality reviews. Further, EPA periodically checks contractors' data entry quality.
Data Limitations: Applications that were returned to the applicant or withdrawn by the
applicant are not captured in the database and are out of scope for this performance measure.
While the report is based on a census, it generates some duplicative data, which must be removed
manually. Efforts are made to remove all duplicative data, while preserving valid data.
However, because this is a non-automated process, a small amount of human error is possible.
Some variability occurs due to unique conditions that vary by Region. Some Regions
consistently process applications in less time than others. This variability may be due to factors
such as badge printing capabilities and economies of scale.
Error Estimate: There is little or 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 after the renovation, remodeling and painting rule is finalized. 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.
1010
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Reduction in the current year production-adjusted risk-based score of releases and
transfers of toxic chemicals from manufacturing facilities (PART measure)
• Annual reduction in the production-adjusted risk-based score of releases and
transfers of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals from manufacturing
facilities [PART measure]
Performance Database: The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Model feeds
these measures and 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,
most recent performance data are only available for FY 2005 and earlier. 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 IRIS;
facility location data from EPA's Facility Registry System (FRS); 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; stream discharge data from EPA's Permit Compliance System
(PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS); 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 and Assumptions: The RSEI Model generates unique, unitless, numerical values,
known as "Indicator Elements" using the factors pertaining to surrogate dose, toxicity and
exposed population for each release-exposure event. Indicator Elements are risk-related
measures generated for every possible combination of reporting facility, chemical, release
medium, and exposure pathway (inhalation or ingestion). Together these values form the
building blocks to describe exposure scenarios of interest. Indicator Elements are like index
numbers that can be compared to one-another but do not reflect actual risk, and are proportional
to the modeled relative risk of each release (incrementally higher numbers reflect greater
estimated risk). 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 are only meaningful when compared to other scores produced by RSEI. These data
are acceptable for use in performance measurement as they are national data reflecting releases
and transfers of chemicals from manufacturing facilities, including a number of high production
volume chemicals i.e., the data of interest for this measure.
1011
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Suitability: The first measure supports the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program's
goal to reduce risk from new and existing chemicals. This measure provides a suitable year to
year comparison against a long term goal of 50% reduction in the RSEI index. The second
measure supports the long term goal to reduce the RSEI index for HPV chemicals 45% by 2011.
This measure provides a suitable year to year comparison against this goal and looks specifically
at the reduction of risk for the subset of TRI chemicals that are also HPV chemicals. The year to
year comparison can reveal trends in the risk from HPV chemicals over time. Despite a two year
lag in TRI data, annual comparisons of overall RSEI results (first measure) and RSEI HPV
results (second measure) can reveal trends in chemical risk over time. Further, depending on how
the user wishes to aggregate data, RSEI can also address trends nationally, regionally, by state or
smaller geographic areas.
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. Additionally because TRI facilities self-report release data
and occasionally make errors. TRI has quality control functions and an error-correction
mechanism for reporting such mistakes. Finally during each RSEI update, the output data are
checked against TRI data for consistency, and the results are compared against previous years'
RSEI results.
Data Quality Reviews: RSEI depends upon a broad array of data resources, each of which has
completed a data-specific quality review process managed by the providers of the data sources.
RSEI includes data from the many sources listed in "Data Sources", above. All data are 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 (SAB). 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 facility-specific data (for parameters such as stack height,
discharge stream reach, location) from EPA data sources. Where such data are not available,
default assumptions are used, or in some cases, the release is not modeled. Offsite releases (from
transfers of toxic chemicals) are particularly affected by a lack of reported TRI data, and while
RSEI addresses this through a process that optimizes the available data, the data are limited and
of uneven quality. In addition, toxicity data are not available for some of the less-toxic TRI
chemicals. Releases to water are not available for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and U.S.
territories, and some releases to water (for reporting facilities and offsite facilities) may not be
1012
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
modeled because of inadequate coverage in the stream reach data. It should also be noted that
TRI data include releases only from TRI-reportable facilities for TRI-reportable chemicals. It
does not include all releases from reporting facilities or all releases of TRI-reportable chemicals.
TRI data may also have errors that are not corrected in the standard TRI QC process.
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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The program regularly tracks improvements in other Agency
databases (e.g., Safe Drinking Water Information System and Reach File databases) and
incorporates updated 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 to the RSEI model databases. EPA is now using data
from the FRS to assign geographic locations to TRI facilities.
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
1013
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose
unreasonable risks to workers, consumers or environment
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 for new chemicals called ISIS, and the
Focus database. The following information from these databases will be used collectively in
applying this measure:
• CBITS: Tracking information on Pre-Manufacture Notices (PMNs) received;
• PMN CBI LAN: Records documenting PMN review and decision, assessment reports on
chemicals submitted for review. In addition, the information developed for each PMN is kept in
hard copy in the Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC);
• ISIS: Data submitted by industry under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(e).
TSCA 8(e) requires that chemical manufacturers, processors, and distributors notify EPA
immediately of new (e.g. not already reported), unpublished chemical information that
reasonably supports a conclusion of substantial risk. TSCA 8(e) substantial risk information
notices most often contain toxicity data but may also contain information on exposure,
environmental persistence, or actions being taken to reduce human health and environmental
risks. It is an important information-gathering tool that serves as an early warning mechanism;
• Focus Database: 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) is responsible for the
implementation of the TSCA. The office 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). This comparison will 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 and Assumptions: 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)
1014
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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. The following 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 based on the PMN review phase. For example,
were 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 focusing on 8(e)s received after the PMN review period was completed.
4. Compare hazard evaluation developed during PMN review with the associated 8(e)
submission.
5. Report on the accuracy of the initial hazard determination.
6. Revise risk assessment 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.
Suitability: The databases used and the information retrieved are directly applicable to this
measurement and therefore suitable for measurement purposes. This measure supports the New
Chemical program's goal to ensure that new chemicals introduced into commerce do not pose
unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment. This measure provides a suitable
year to year comparison against this goal because supporting data and analysis are conducted on
an annual basis, directly linking to this long-term goal.
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: 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
1015
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 the integrated, electronic
Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) system that will provide real time access to prospective PMN
review.
References: OPPT New Chemicals Program
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchemsA 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 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percent reduction from baseline year in average cost of TSCA Section 8(e)
processing and searches. [PART efficiency measure]
• Percent reduction from baseline year in cost of managing PMN submissions through
the Focus meeting as a percentage of baseline year cost. [PART efficiency measure]
Performance Databases: EPA will rely on several principal databases to facilitate
implementation of the TSCA Section 8(e) and new chemical submission efficiency measures:
• Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS): CBITS allows users to
access basic identifying and status information on each hard copy 8(e) notification and
new chemical submission to EPA, track receipt of each hard copy submission as well as
requests for copies of submissions or information therein, and to obtain data on number
of hard copy submissions and requests for copies per fiscal year. CBITS is a paper
system which will eventually be phased out in favor of MTS database (see below).
• Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) database: This is a new system that, when applied to
8(e) notifications and new chemical submissions in FY 2008, will enable users to receive,
1016
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
process, and store electronic submissions of 8(e) notifications and new chemical
submissions information, and accommodate subsequent searches and retrievals
performed by EPA or contractor staff. The system will provide data on the number of
electronic submissions per fiscal year and the number of searches and retrievals
conducted electronically by accessing scanned documents.
Data Sources: The sources of data for this performance measure are the 8(e) notifications and
new chemical submissions and the information summarized in the databases described above.
No external data sources play a direct role in the calculation of measurement results, although the
8(e) notifications often make reference to external data sources in which the reported 8(e)
information originally appeared.
Methods and Assumptions: The efficiency measure "Average cost of TSCA Section 8(e)
processing and searches" is calculated by: (1) defining the baseline year (FY 2007) and
developing baseline information expressed as the average time required to conduct 8(e)
processing and searches in the baseline year; (2) converting average time to average cost
measurements; (3) setting appropriate targets for outyears, reflecting increasing levels of
efficiency; and (4) conducting actual measurements for fiscal years beginning with FY 2009,
after electronic submissions, processing and searches begin. These steps can be summarized
individually as follows:
(1) Obtain baseline data: FY 2007 baseline data were obtained for each of five distinct
sub-measures that are combined additively to produce the single efficiency measure
described here. These sub-measures and the associated average handling times for 8(e)'s
are: (a) average time spent sorting mail for 8(e)'s in the Confidential Business
Information Center (CBIC) - 5 minutes per 8(e); (b) average time spent processing 8(e)'s
in the CBIC - 10 minutes per 8(e); (c) average time searching the CBITS and/or MTS
databases - 20 minutes per 8(e); (d) average time spent retrieving 8(e)'s from the CBIC -
25 minutes per 8(e); and (e) average time spent retrieving 8(e)'s off the shelf and
replacing them - 2 minutes per 8(e). Collectively, these sub-measures represent the
complete activity profile for 8(e) processing and searches. The time estimates are based
on interviews with key staff conducted by the program.
(2) Convert average time baseline to average cost: For sub-measures that describe tasks
performed by EPA staff, average time estimates have been converted to average cost by
taking the standard hourly rate for a biologist at grade 14, step 1; dividing by 60 to
express the hourly rate in minutes; and multiplying the result by the average time
estimate (in minutes), yielding the average cost per 8(e). Similar calculations are
performed for sub-measures that describe contractor tasks, except that the hourly rate is
obtained from actual experience under the applicable contract.
(3) Set targets for fiscal years: The gradual expansion of electronic reporting and
scanning is the main factor driving the targeted improvement in the measure. Target
setting is based on what is considered reasonable and achievable. Targets are expressed,
preliminarily, as the expected percentage increase in electronic submissions or scanned
1017
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
8(e)s from the baseline fiscal year and the amount of time required for handling of such
materials.
(4) Conduct measurements: The final step in the measurement process is to perform
the actual measurements for specific fiscal years. This is done by consulting the
databases described earlier to determine the actual proportion of submissions and
searches/retrievals that are electronic and the proportion that are non-electronic, and
inserting these data into the appropriate average cost formula. For instance, with respect
to the average sorting time measure, one substitutes the actual proportion of non-
electronic submissions for the target of .95 and the actual proportion of electronic
submissions for the target of .05, leaving all other numbers in the formula the same.
There are a number of facts and assumptions underlying the preceding methodology: (a)
Baseline 8(e) submissions and searches are all conducted non-electronically; (b) The overall
number of submissions and search requests will remain static over the three-year period; (c)
Possible increases in contractor and EPA staff costs are disregarded; and (d) for the average time
searching CBITS/MTS sub-measure, the cost of electronic searches is proportional to search
time (i.e., 20 minutes / 5 minutes = baseline cost divided by 4 = $12.40/4 = $3.10). For the other
sub-measures, the average time and average cost are zero. Note: Item (a) can be considered a
fact, while items (b)-(d) are assumptions.
The calculation is the nearly the same for new chemical submissions. Just substitute "new
chemical submissions" for "8(e)" above. The sub-measures and the associated average handling
times for new chemical submissions are slightly modified. They are: (a) average time spent
sorting and processing mail for new chemical submissions in the Confidential Business
Information Center (CBIC) - 35 minutes per new chemical submission; and (b) average time
searching and retrieving new chemical submissions - 45 minutes per new chemical submission.
Collectively, these sub-measures represent the complete activity profile for new chemical
submission processing and searches. The time estimates are based on interviews with key staff
conducted by the program.
The performance measures are suitable efficiency measures because average cost takes into
account all expenses involved. The sub-measures exhaust all activities which contribute to
process and the associated costs. The data collected and analyzed represent the costs of 8(e) and
new chemical processing and are the most acceptable data available for this measure. All data
meet the QMP requirements and outcomes are reviewed by OPPT senior management.
Suitability: The indicators selected are suitable and appropriate because they reflect expected
cost savings stemming from automation of the new chemical submission and 8(e) notification
and review process. This represents EPA's progress toward its goal of improving program
efficiency.
1018
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 Review: 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 these measures.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. The measures do not require inferences from statistical samples
and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error.
New/Improved Data or Systems: As mentioned above, the development and deployment of the
new MITS (Manage Toxic Substances) database will enable users to track electronic submissions
and handling of 8(e) and new chemical information. The system will provide data on the number
of electronic submissions per fiscal year and the number of searches and retrievals conducted
electronically by accessing scanned documents.
References: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tsca8e/
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Cumulative number of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals with Screening
Level Hazard Characterization Reports completed [PART measure]
• Cumulative number of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals with Risk-Based
Decisions completed [PART measure]
Performance Database: EPA uses a reporting spreadsheet called "Hazard Score and Data Gaps
for High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals to track the number of completed Screening
Level Hazard Characterization Reports. The spreadsheet is located on the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) secure Local Area Network (LAN) drive (G:\HPV Hazard
Characterization), with the working copy located on the Branch Chiefs desktop. EPA uses a
reporting spreadsheet called "Risk-Based Decisions for High Production Volume (HPV)
Chemicals" to track the number of completed Risk Based Decisions and other developed
products besides the Hazard Characterizations described above that contribute to those decisions,
such as Fate Characterizations, Exposure Characterizations, and Risk Characterizations. The
entire process associated with tracking chemicals through the Security and Prosperity Partnership
(SPP) is also tracked through the High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS)
database.
1019
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Data Source: The Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports are completed by EPA staff
based on submissions from chemical sponsors, and are completed for both U.S. HPVs and
international Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) chemicals. Each screening level hazard
characterization document represents a thorough review by qualified EPA personnel of the
information provided by the submitter. Once a report is completed, as determined by senior
scientist and management review, the spreadsheet is updated with the chemical name and date of
completion. Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports are combined with Exposure and
Fate Characterizations based on information received from industry through the TSCA Inventory
Update (IUR), leading to development of Risk Characterizations for each chemical. Division
Directors within OPPT look holistically at this information and make a Risk-Based
Recommendation. A Risk-Based Decision is then made by the OPPT Office Director and this
integrated product is made publicly available through the HPV Program website and through
HP VIS.
Methods and Assumptions: Hazard characterizations contribute to the Agency's ability to
make Risk Based Decisions for HPV chemicals. The measures count the number of completed
Hazard Characterization products (reports) at the time they are forwarded from the Risk
Assessment Division to the Chemical Control Division, and the number of associated Risk-
Based Decisions, measured at the time that the Office Director's decision is made final. Public
posting of the Risk-Based Decision occurs approximately 2-4 weeks following decision
finalization.
Suitability: Both of these measures are direct output measures of the Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction program. These output measures support the outcome goal of reducing risk from
HPV chemicals and are suitable for year to year as well as quarter to quarter comparisons.
Hazard screening is an important first step in reducing risk and Risk-Based Decisions form the
primary basis for taking action to reduce risk and improve human health.
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 August 28th, 2006, and under the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Quality
Management Plan (QMP) ("Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics; Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances," June 2003) and the program will
ensure that those standards and procedures are applied to this effort. Specifically, each Screening
Level Hazard Characterization Report is reviewed by a senior staffer in the HPV program, the
Branch Chief and the Division Director. The same review is applied to the count of cumulative
Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports completed.
Data Quality Reviews: Recent GAO reviews found that EPA does not routinely assess the risks
of all existing chemicals and faces challenges in obtaining the information necessary to do so.
1020
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
EPA has taken several steps to respond to these reviews including successful implementation of
a process to routinely assess risks of existing chemicals. Data submissions have been received
for 1,357 (97%) out of the 1,401 chemicals sponsored directly in the HPV Challenge Program.
EPA scientists are currently utilizing the data to review HPV chemicals and develop screening-
level Hazard Characterizations (HC). The screening-level HCs will be combined with Exposure
Characterizations to create Screening-level Risk Characterizations, which will summarize any
potential risks, identify scientific issues, and ensure transparency and risk communication. For
chemicals of concern, voluntary and regulatory Risk-Based Decisions will then be implemented
to achieve effective risk management.
Data Limitations: None.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. No models, assumptions or statistical methods are applied.
New/Improved Data or Systems: A content page is available for posting the Screening Level
Hazard Characterization Reports publicly on EPA's HPV website
http://iaspub.epa.gov/oppthpv/hpv he characterization.get report. A content page is under
development for posting Risk Based Decisions publicly on EPA's HPV website. This website
will post Risk-Based Decisions as an integrated product of Hazard, exposure and fate
characterizations, which form the basis of the decision making process. The site will allow for
review of the all products leading to the Risk-Based Decisions by the chemical sponsors and
other interested parties and will contain instructions for submitting comments on the reports or
underlying data. The comments will also be posted.
References:
"Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003.
GAO-05-458: Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess Health
Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program, June 2005
GAO-06-1032T: Chemical Regulation: Actions Are Needed to Improve the Effectiveness of
EPA's Chemical Review Program, August 2006
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Number of risk management plan audits and inspections completed
Performance Database: The EPA Annual Commitment System (ACS) is the database for the
number of risk management plan audits.
1021
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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, EPA Headquarters (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: Regions enter data into the Agency's Annual
Commitment System. HQ prepares an annual report. Data are count data and not open to
interpretation.
QA/QC Procedures: Data are collected from states by EPA's Regional offices, and reviewed at
the time of Regional data entry. Data are regularly compared to similar data from the past to
identify potential errors.
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 and the EPA Regional offices.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
Reference: N/A
FY 2009 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
1022
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
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.htmtfleaded
For additional information on sulfur levels, see
http://www.unep. org/PCF V/Data/data. htm#sulphur
1023
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of Brownfields properties assessed [PART performance measure]
• Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding
• Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities
• Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields
properties. [PART performance measure]
• Acres of Brownfields made ready for reuse [PART performance measure]
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
Performance measure data is tracked by fiscal year and will not be available for the FY 2009
PAR; data will be available for the FY 2010 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.
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,
1024
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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 launched and phased in an online reporting form in FY 2007.
References: For more information on the Brownfields program, see Investing in Partnership,
Possibility and People: 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 2009 Performance Measure:
• 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 Environmental Justice (EJ) Collaborative Problem-Solving (CPS)
Cooperative Agreement (CA) Program within the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ)
1025
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
established and maintains the "EJ CPS CA Performance Tracking Database" in Lotus Notes to
support the above program performance measure. The purpose of the program is to fund
individual projects that each employ CPS strategies to improve environmental and/or public
health in a specified community with environmental justice concerns. The database consists of
specific information and data that are gathered from individual project files and entered by OEJ
project officers who are assigned to one or more individual projects. To determine progress
toward the above-stated program performance measure, OEJ periodically evaluates the
information and data in the database and project files for completed projects using the consistent
program procedures described below. Each completed project has the potential to be counted as
one community that meets the program performance measure.
Data Source: The main sources of data for this program performance measure are semi-annual
reports that are submitted to OEJ project officers by the recipients of EPA CPS CA projects.
Each OEJ project officer enters data and information from these reports into the above-
mentioned database. The most important type of data in the semi-annual reports are current
values for one or more performance measures that are each associated with a project-specific
performance goal and baseline. The units of these measured values, as well as the goals and
baselines have been evaluated to determine if they are appropriate, reasonable, realistic and will
ensure a strong logical linkage with the above-mentioned CPS CA program performance
measure. As described below, the logical linkages are designed to ensure that the attainment of
the project-specific goals for a given project serves as a reliable basis for concluding that the
community named in the project has achieved "significant measurable environmental and/or
public health improvement through collaborative problem-solving strategies."
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The projects in the EJ CPS CA program are awarded
through a competitive review process in which applications are received in response to periodic
requests for applications (RFAs). Each award recipient generally is a community-based
organization that provides a project manager who reports to an OEJ project officer. The JAFAs
instruct applicants to define the specific potential environmental justice concern that their project
proposes to address, and also instructs them to provide the outputs, outcomes, performance
goals, and performance measures that are expected from their project. The process for
evaluating these applications is guided by a published evaluation criteria and consensus among
reviewers as to whether a given applicant has proposed a strong strategy that will "achieve
significant measureable environmental and/or public health improvements through collaborative
problem solving," as required by the above-listed program performance measure. After the
projects are selected for award, each OEJ project officer works with the project manager in the
awardees' organization to refine a priority list of outputs, performance measures and goals, and
baseline measures that must be tracked at least monthly throughout the life of the project. These
lists also are used to prepare the templates for the semi-annual progress reports, which are the
primary sources of data for the program performance measure, as described in the previous
section. In working with the project manager to establish these lists, each OEJ project officer
uses program guidance to ensure that the performance measures, performance goals, and baseline
1026
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
measures for the project are appropriate, reasonable, and realistic, and are consistent with OEJ
procedures for determining when the project has met the program performance measure stated
above. In addition, each OEJ project officer follows OEJ guidance to ensure that project
performance measures and goals are being tracked accordingly throughout the life of the project.
The units of measurement for the project-specific goals, measures, and baselines often vary
between different projects depending on the types of community improvements being pursued by
each project. However, the structure of the CPS CA program enables the OEJ project officers to
coordinate with each other and with their respective CPS CA project manager to ensure the
establishment of similar project goals between projects that are addressing similar types of
environmental and/or public health improvements in their communities. The lists of indicators
selected for each community vary due to the unique nature of the improvements the communities
are trying to make. Examples of the types of improvements include but are not limited to:
• Increased coordination between healthcare providers and local government service
organizations, and
• Reductions in exposures of community residents to:
- Contaminated groundwater in their private wells,
- Household toxins (such as asthma triggers and lead),
- Workplace toxins (such products used in nail salons and floor-finishing
businesses)
- Emissions from nearby hog farm operations
- Diesel emissions from nearby trucking operations.
Some of the key measures used to track these improvements include, but are not limited to
numbers of:
• Patients newly referred to a specific government service organization by project-trained
healthcare workers
• Participants completing a specific training on how to reduce their exposure to toxins
• Participants who commit to making one or more behavior changes
• Participants observed to have made one or more behavior changes
• Households with reduced exposures
• Business owners who commit to one or more specific behavior changes, such as
modifying their operations to reduce releases of pollutants
• New regulations, ordinances, or laws resulting from project activities
QA/QC Procedures: 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) approved Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) for projects involving
the collection of primary or secondary environmental data.
1027
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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: The first round of collaborative problem-solving projects was not structured
to capture baseline information and some detailed performance measure data. However, the files
for these projects contain information and data that can be used in concert with OEJ guidance to
make determinations as to whether the results of each of these projects meet the program
performance measure by achieving "significant measureable improvement" in their respective
communities.
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: The CPS Program revised the solicitation to improve data
collection. Awards made in FY 2007 are structured to capture baseline information and more
detailed performance measure data. This change will be reflected over the next several years.
References: For more information on collaborative problem-solving see EPA 's Environmental
Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model.
(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/grants/cps-manual-12-27-06.pdf)
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Additional people served per million dollars (US and Mexico federal expenditures)
[PART efficiency measure]
• Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water in the Mexican border
area that lacked access to drinking water in 2003 [PART annual measure]
• Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater sanitation in the
Mexican border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003 [PART
annual measure]
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 to
establish the baseline, 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.
1028
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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).
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), Cd Juarez, Chih, and North American
Development Bank (NADBank), (San Antonio, TX, 2002).
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Acres of habitat protected or restored in National Estuary Program (NEP) study areas
[PART annual measure]
• Program dollars per acre of habitat protected or restored [PART annual 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
1029
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 report on NEP achievements
during 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: There is not necessarily a direct correlation between
the number of habitat acres restored and protected and ecosystem health, nor are habitat quantity
or quality the only indicators of ecosystem health. But, habitat acreage is an important
measure of on-the-ground progress made toward meeting the EPA annual goal of protecting and
restoring habitat in NEP study areas. EPA has defined and provided examples of Aprotection®
and Arestoration® activities for purposes of tracking and reporting measures (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 creation of habitat, , acquisition
of areas for the purpose of protection, conservation easements and deed restrictions, efforts
resulting in increased submerged aquatic vegetation coverage, permanent shellfish bed openings,
and efforts resulting in increased anadromous fish habitat.
The NEP "Habitat Acres Protected or Restored" efficiency measure is calculated by dividing the
total ocean and coastal protection program dollars by the total NEP acres protected or restored.
The measure is based on habitat data collected by the NEPs as described above and reported in
the annual habitat measure, and the total amount of program dollars. That amount is: (1) the sum
of the NEP/Coastal budget (including the additional funds for Long Island Sound), (2) the
Marine Pollution budget, and (3) 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.
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),
1030
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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, 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); rather, the acreage is one 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 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 2002) is available on the Intranet at
http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/informationresources/quality/qualitymanage.html
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Restore or protect acres of coastal habitat including tidal wetlands, dunes, riparian
buffers, and freshwater wetlands. [Long Island Sound]
Performance Database: The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) 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 National
Estuary Program (NEP) (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis). The EPA Long Island
Sound Office (LISO) requires the states of New York and Connecticut, which are Long Island
Sound Study Management Conference partners, to collect and report acres of habitat restored and
protected as required by the NEP. The states use internal project tracking systems to gather,
summarize and report restoration and protection data to LISO, which, in turn, enters the data into
the OWOW habitat information system.
1031
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 is confident that the data
presented are as accurate as possible. The EPA Long Island Sound Office (LISO) reviews the
information prior to reporting. In addition, EPA LISO conducts regular reviews of state habitat
restoration work 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 for LIS. EPA has defined and provided
examples of protection and restoration 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.
QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the state and federal staff of the LISS
Habitat Restoration Team 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 LISS staff are requested to follow EPA guidance to prepare
their reports, and to verify the numbers. 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.
1032
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
New/Improved Data or Systems: The LISS is developing a new data system to report and
track habitat restoration data from the LISS. This will include latitude and longitude data (where
possible) for each project. These data would be mapped to highlight where these projects are
located in the LISS study area. This system is expected to be developed over the next several
federal fiscal years. 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: See V&V for National Estuary Program for PIVOT and NEPORT.
Results of Long Island Sound habitat restoration efforts are documented in the biennial reports,
Sound Health., and Protection and Progress., and the annual LISS Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan Implementation Tracking Report, available at:
http://www.longislandsoundstudv.net/publications.htmtfreports.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Reduce point source nitrogen discharges to the Long Island Sound as measured by
the Long Island Sound Nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
Performance Database: 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. The states of Connecticut and New York
are required, as part of their delegated NPDES permit programs, to periodically monitor and test
effluent for appropriate pollutants, including nitrogen, complete DMRs and enter this
information into PCS.
Data Source: Permittee self-reported DMR data are entered into PCS by state offices, which are
delegated to implement the NPDES program. 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.
1033
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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. Nitrogen waste load allocations (WLA) are specified in the December 2000
A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Analysis to Achieve Water Quality Standards for
Dissolved Oxygen in Long Island Sound that was prepared by the states of New York and
Connecticut and approved by EPA in conformance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
The TMDL nitrogen WLAs are included in the NPDES (state-delegated) permits issued by the
states for dischargers to Long Island Sound.
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
EPA's PCS standards for point source data. Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures are in
place for PCS data entry. State and Regional PCS data entry staff are required to take PCS
training courses. 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 is 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: There may be errors of omission, misclassification, incorrect georeferencing,
misdocumentation or mistakes in the processing of data.
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),
1034
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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, 2007.
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.
References:
Nitrogen TMDL: http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2719&q=325604&depNav_GID=1654
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/publications.htmtfreports
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Reopen miles of river and stream corridor to anadromous fish passage through
removal of dams and barriers or installations of by-pass structures such as fishways.
[Long Island Sound]
Performance Database: A publicly accessible web-based database is under development by
the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) to track this measure. Currently, the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation track and report fish passage projects and the additional miles
of river and stream corridors reopened as a result. The states submit these data to the EPA
Long Island Sound Office, which is one of the goals of the LISS.
Data Source: The Long Island Sound Study has established a Habitat Restoration Team
(HRT) comprised of federal, state, and local agency staff and private organizations.
Public/Private projects to reopen river and stream corridors to fish passage are tracked by the
work group coordinators (staff in the states of Connecticut and New York). In addition, the
EPA Long Island Sound Office conducts regular reviews of state habitat restoration work to
help ensure that information provided in these documents is accurate, and progress reported
is in fact being achieved. Long Island Sound Study Habitat Restoration annual reports on
projects are made available at http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habitat/index.htm.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Long Island Sound Study goal is to reopen an
additional 50 miles of riverine migratory corridor from 2006-2011, or 8.33 miles/year. From
1998 to 2005, the cumulative amount of miles reopened was 81 miles. In future years,
additional river miles reopened beyond that baseline will be counted toward the goal.
For each project, the location (state, town), stream name, cause of degradation, project
description, miles restored, targeted fish species, implementation partners, and project
funding are tracked. Miles restored are calculated based on the length of stream that is
reopened to fish by eliminating the obstacle.
1035
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
QA/QC Procedures: Stream miles are considered reopened after fish are observed passing
through the obstacle.
Data Quality Review: Each project report is reviewed by the habitat restoration
coordinators, Habitat Restoration Team, and the EPA Long Island Sound Office.
Data Limitations: The stream corridor is considered reopened when anadromous fish are
observed passing through the obstacle. The data do not assess the success rate of fish
passage or the use of the upstream habitat.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data Systems: The LISS is developing a new web-based data system to
report and track habitat restoration data from the LISS. This will include latitude and
longitude data (where possible) for each project. These data would be mapped to highlight
where these projects are located in the LISS study area. This system is expected to be
developed over the next several federal fiscal years.
References: 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 2009 Performance Measure:
• 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 Fish and Wildlife 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.
1036
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 report14 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
14 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.
1037
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
1038
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
References:
http://wetlands.fws.gov/index.httnl
http://wetlands.fws.gov/bha/SandT/SandTReport.html
http://wetlands.fws.gov/Pubs Reports/publi.htm
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• In partnership with the Corps of Engineers, states and tribes, achieve no net loss of
wetlands each year under 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
1039
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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;
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. Between 2000-2002, the Corps developed a new national permit
tracking database called ORM (Operation and maintenance business information link,
Regulatory Module) to replace its existing database (RAMS). ORM1, as it was called, was
deployed in most of the Corps' 38 districts by Fall 2006, but in 2004 the Corps began partnering
with EPA on a set of comprehensive upgrades to ORM1 to spatially enable the data management
system and improve data sharing capabilities. By July 2007, the upgraded version of ORM
known as ORM2 had been deployed in 37 of the Corps' 39 districts. This should enable national
reporting in 2008. Unlike ORM1, ORM2 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 ORM2 via a system of web-services
and web-mapping tools. EPA's interface with ORM2 (tentatively named the Wetlands
Information Layer (WIL)) is currently under development and will provide EPA with the ability
to access and manage the data available in ORM2 to help meet business needs in the Section 404
program.
1040
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
ORM2 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
• Mitigation banks via the inclusion of a comprehensive module for tracking and managing
mitigation banks known as the Regional Internet-based Bank Information Tracking
System (RIBITS). With EPA's assistance RIBITS has been piloted in 4 Corps districts to
date.
References: Regulatory Analysis and Management System (RAMS) website:
http://www.cecer.army.mil/td/tips/product/details.cfm?ID=265&TOP=l
Regional Internet-based Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS) website:
http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/pls/erdcpub/WWW WELCOME.NAVIGATION PAGE?tmp
next_page=114145
National Academy of Sciences (2001). Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean
Water Act. Washington DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation/
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Average annual percentage decline for the long-term trend in concentrations of
PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples [PART performance measure]
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 FY09, the database will
contain quality reviewed field data from fish collected in 2007 and all quality reviewed analytical
1041
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
data for fish collected between 1972 and 2006. 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 2007 is expected to be able to be used for reporting in 2009. 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
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 independently reviewed for quality consideration prior to loading 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. GLNPO rounds the calculated value to the nearest whole percentage for
reporting and comparison purposes. 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
1042
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Assurance (QA) plan that supports the analytical portion of the fish contaminant program is
approved and available online3 (see reference #3 below). The revised draft field sampling Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and draft Quality Management Plan has been submitted to the
GLNPO QA Officer for review and approval. Approval of the revised sampling objectives is
subject to results of a peer review conducted in fall 2007.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been evaluated as
"outstanding" in previous peer and management reviews4 (see reference #4 below). Specific
highlights relative to this indicator include: "QA requirements are systematically planned using
the DQO process. Major programs such as the Open Lakes Monitoring (Lake Guardian
sampling activities), Open Lakes Organics Monitoring, the Biology Monitoring, the Great Lakes
Fish Monitoring and the Legacy Act program were exemplary in systematic planning and
documenting QA requirements. " (4) 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.
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 tentatively 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 this
new data quality objective and associated data is tentatively scheduled for the 4th quarter 2007.
This peer review will also assist in providing 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. GLNPO has
awarded a new consortium grant for these analyses that allows researchers from three different
universities to specialize in their individual areas of analytical expertise and provide more timely
data of a higher quality.
1043
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
"The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - A Technical and Scientific Model For Interstate
Environmental Monitoring" September, 1990. EPA503/4-90-004.
"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/
"Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sample
Collection Activities", Great Lakes National Program Office. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP QAPP 082504.pdf
"GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Average annual percentage decline for the long-term trend in concentrations of
PCBs in the air in the Great Lakes basin [PART performance measure]
Performance Database: Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) integrated
atmospheric deposition network * (see reference #1 below) (IADN) operated jointly with
Environment Canada. Reporting starts with 1992 data and includes concentrations of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
organochlorine pesticides in air and precipitation; however, this Performance Measure addresses
only PCBs. Monitoring results from 2007 will be reported in 2009. 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
1044
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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. GLNPO rounds the calculated value to the nearest whole percentage for reporting and
comparison purposes. 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 5 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
1045
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 was partially addressed through the recent implementation by GLNPO of the
Great Lakes Aquatic Contaminant Surveillance (GLACS) program, which had water
contaminant data collected in Lakes Michigan and Superior.
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 inter-comparison 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: http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/data/form/form e.html 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." Available at
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
1046
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2006". Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within Areas of Concern. [PART
performance measure]
Performance Database: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the
cumulative total Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) removed within the 26 Areas of Concern
(AOC) located entirely within the United States and the five AOCs that are shared by both the
United States and Canada.
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: Restoration of U.S. or Binational Areas of Concern
will ultimately be measured by the removal of all beneficial use impairments, leading to de-
listing of all of the U.S. or Binational Areas of Concern by 2025. A total of 43 Great Lakes
Areas of Concern have been identified: 26 located entirely within the United States; 12 located
wholly within Canada; and 5 that are shared by both countries. 301 United States or Binational
Areas of Concern remain. Remedial Action Plans for each of these Areas of Concern address one
or more of up to 14 beneficial use impairments associated with these areas. At the end of Fiscal
Year 2006, there was a total universe of 260 beneficial use impairments reported in the United
States or Binational Areas of Concern. An impaired beneficial use means a change in the
chemical, physical or biological integrity of the Great Lakes system sufficient to cause any of the
following:
-restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
-tainting offish and wildlife flavor
-degradation offish wildlife populations
1047
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
-fish tumors or other deformities
-bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems
-degradation of benthos
-restrictions on dredging activities
-eutrophication or undesirable algae
-restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems
-beach closings
-degradation of aesthetics
-added costs to agriculture or industry
-degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations
-loss offish and wildlife habitat
Additional information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html
The States work with the local stakeholders in the Areas of Concern to develop delisting criteria
for the impaired BUIs. The BUI delisting criteria are used to assess when a BUI is restored and
can be delisted. After all BUIs in an AOC are delisted, the entire Area of Concern can be
delisted.
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 5 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 reviews (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:
1. GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system for de-listed U.S. or
binational Beneficial Use Impairments.
2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office." EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
1048
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qtnp/qualitysystetnsassesstnent.pdf.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated (cumulative from 1997) in the Great
Lakes [PART performance measure]
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
2008 remediation will be reported in FY 2009.
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 quality system
documentation 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. GLNPO sums the volume estimates as provided by the individual project
managers, but then rounds the cumulative total to the nearest one hundred thousand cubic yards
for reporting purposes.
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
1049
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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. (See reference # 5 below). Specific highlights from this review relative to
this indicator include: "Across GLNPO, assessment of the quality of existing data and
documentation of the quality of existing data for intended use is a standard practice. This is
commendable as the Agency is still attempting to define requirements for usability existing
data." 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 Basin. 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 Great Lakes National Program
Office files.
1050
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
2. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Matrix". Unpublished - in Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
3. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Pie Charts". Unpublished - in Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
4. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Compilation of Project Managers Informational Sheets". Unpublished
- in Great Lakes National Program Office files
5. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitvsystemsassessment.pdf
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Cost per cubic yard of contaminated sediments remediated (cumulative). [PART
Efficiency Measure]
Performance Database: Data tracking sediment remediation volumes and costs are compiled
for all Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) projects. As all GLLA projects are managed by
GLNPO, project volumes and costs are all readily available within 2-3 months of project
completion. This database is updated with cost and volume numbers at the completion of each
GLLA sediment clean-up project.
Data Source: GLNPO collects sediment remediation data for all the GLLA projects. At the
completion of each project a hydrographic survey is conducted that provides accurate volumes
for dredged/remediated sediments at all GLLA projects. This information is collected using an
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). All GLLA projects require a QAPP prior to
conducting work at the site. GLNPO does not accept data without adequate assurance that a
QAPP was in place and the reporters of the data are not likely to be biased. Following the
completion of a project, a final report is developed that includes information on
dredged/remediated sediment volumes. Also, at the close of each project a final accounting is
conducted to provide accurate final cost estimates.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This measure allows comparison of the actual cost of
remediating Great Lakes contaminated sediments (pursuant to the Great Lakes Legacy Act) to a
threshold cost of $200 per cubic yard. The target is achieved when the actual cost of
contaminated sediment remediation (cumulative) pursuant to the Legacy Act is less than or equal
to $200 per cubic yard. The program does not anticipate that actual costs per cubic yard would
decrease each year, particularly since project costs are expected to increase as they become more
complicated and disposal costs increase in future years.
1051
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
The estimated sediment remediation cost target of $200 per cubic yard has been determined
using best professional judgment. Reference points include a 2004 effort by the U.S. Great
Lakes Policy Committee and a January 2007 paper on Environmental Dredging Costs analyzing
64 completed environmental dredging projects.
Targets and results will be reported on a calendar year basis. The program will use total funding
as the basis of this measure, but will also track federal and non-federal dollars. Final project
costs and the quantity of cubic yards of contaminated sediments will be calculated using
cumulative numbers.
Data are collected to track the amount of sediment remediated and project cost. Projects are not
included in the database until they are completed; partial project information is not reported for
this measure.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has a QA Manager who is responsible for approval of the QAPP
for all GLLA projects. A QAPP is required for each GLLA project and a draft Quality
Management Plan for the GLLA is used as an overall quality management guide. Part of this
site-specific QAPP includes information on the hydrographic surveys used to determine volume
estimates for each project. EPA contractors oftentimes accompany the surveying crew to ensure
all procedures are followed. This information is typically made available approximately 2-3
months following project completion.
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. GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given "outstanding" evaluations in
previous peer and management reviews (see Reference #4 below). GLNPO has implemented all
recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality Standards.
Data Limitations: The data generated from this efficiency measure should be used as an
indicator of the general trend in the costs of sediment remediation under the Great Lakes Legacy
Act.
Error Estimate: A specific error estimate is not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The recent GLNPO Quality Management Review of GLNPO
from July of 2006 highlighted the following improvements:
"Management of the Great Lakes Legacy program is exemplary. Ensuring conformance
with EPA 's quality requirements was evident in the creative approach to planning and
overseeing quality throughout the life cycle of the project. The draft 2005 Quality
Implementation and Management Plan is comprehensive. QA plans reviewed were
detailed and appropriately approved. Post project meetings with EPA, state partners and
local advisory councils to review project with focus on detailing lessons learned is a best
1052
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
practice. Data Quality Assessment to determine opportunities for improvement is a
critical component of the QA Project Plan. The project officers are to be commended for
the documented life cycle management for the Great Lakes Legacy Act Program. (4)
References:
1. Estimates of Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Needs. U.S. Great Lakes Policy Committee.
January 11, 2005. Unpublished - in USEPA GLNPO files.
2. Estes, TJ. 2007. Environmental Dredging Project Costs—The Mystery. The Mystique, The
Muddle. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments.
3. Tuchman, M and Alexander, M. 2007. Remediation of the Black Lagoon, Trenton,
Michigan, Great Lakes Legacy Program. Draft Report.
4. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitvsystemsassessment.pdf
FY 2009 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]
• Total nitrogen reduction practices implementation achieved as a result of
agricultural best management practice implementation per million dollars to
implement agricultural BMPs [PART annual efficiency measure]
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
1053
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
Agricultural BMP costs include all capital and O&M costs assumed by both landowners and
government agencies. This measure focuses on agricultural BMPs because they are the most cost
effective way to reduce nutrient loading in the watershed.
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, 2006 and are expected on an annual
basis after 2006. Data are from Chesapeake Bay watershed portions of NY, MD, PA, VA, WV,
DE, and DC.
The F Y 2009 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
calendar year 2008 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for calendar
year 2008 in September 2009.
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.
Agricultural practice costs used in the PART efficiency measure are in the guidance document
"Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and
Attainability" (Technical Support Document) found at
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/ecoanalyses.htm under "Part I: Documentation of Estimated
Costs of the Tier Scenarios". The direct address is
1054
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/doc-ecoanal-PartI.pdf. Specific cost information for
agricultural practices begins on electronic page 59 and a summary table of unit BMP costs is on
electronic page 93.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The data are of high quality. Data are consolidated by
watershed boundaries at the state level and provided to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office for
input into the watershed model.
What is the Watershed Model?
A lumped parameter Fortran-based model (HSPF) that mimics the effects of hydrology, nutrient
inputs, and air deposition on land and outputs runoff, groundwater, nutrients and sediment to
receiving waters. Ten years of simulation are used and averaged to develop the reduction effects
of a given set of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Using a ten-year average of actual
weather (hydrologic, temperature, wind, etc.) ensures wet, dry and average conditions for each
season are included. The effectiveness of the model is dependent upon the quality of the
assumptions, BMPs and landuse descriptions used. The model is calibrated extensively to real-
time monitoring, outside peer review and continual updates as better information, data collection
and computer processing power become available.
What are the input data?
The model takes meteorological inputs such as precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration,
wind speed, solar radiation, dewpoint, and cloud cover to drive the hydrologic simulation. The
changes in nutrient outputs are primarily determined by such factors as land use acreage, BMPs,
fertilizer, manure, atmospheric deposition, point sources, and septic loads.
BMPs: Watershed Model BMPs include all nutrient reduction activities tracked by the
jurisdictions for which a source has been identified, cataloged and assigned an efficiency.
Efficiencies are based on literature review, recommendations of the appropriate source
workgroup and approved by the Nutrient Subcommittee. It is the responsibility of the
jurisdictions to track and report all nutrient reduction activities within their borders and maintain
documentation to support submissions.
Land use acreage is determined by combining analyses of satellite imagery and county-based
databases for agricultural activities and human population. Fertilizer is determined by estimated
application rates by 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
1055
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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 (2008)
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
1056
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
QA/QC Procedures: State offices have documentation of the design, construction and
maintenance of the databases used for the performance measures, showing they conform to
existing U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA/NRCS) technical standards and specifications for nonpoint source data and EPA's
Permit Compliance System (PCS) standards for point source data. State offices also have
documentation of implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) based on USD A NRCS
standards and specification and the Chesapeake Bay Program's protocols and guidance. BMPs
are traditionally used to reduce pollutant loads coming from nonpoint sources such as
urban/suburban runoff, agriculture, and forestry activities.
References include: the 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
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 2008. 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 at gshenk@chesapeakebay.net or see the web site at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/phase5.htm
1057
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
References:
See http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data/index.httn, 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=l86.
The nutrient and sediment loads delivered to the Bay data files used in the indicator are located
at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/statustrends/186-data-2003.xls. See "Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model Application and Calculation of Nutrient and Sediment Loadings, Appendix H:
Tracking Best Management Practice Nutrient Reductions in the Chesapeake Bay Program, A
Report of the Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee", USEPA Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD, August 1998, available at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
See USDA NRCS Field Office Technical Guide available at
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/. The indicator and data survey is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2007reports/IndicatorSurveyReducingPollution032906.doc
See "Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and
Attainability" (Technical Support Document) found at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/ecoanalyses.htm under "Part I: Documentation of Estimated
Costs of the Tier Scenarios". The direct address is
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/doc-ecoanal-PartI.pdf Specific cost information for
agricultural practices begins on electronic page 59 and a summary table of unit BMP costs is on
electronic page 93.
FY 2009 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.
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
1985-2006 and are expected on an annual basis after 2006.
1058
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
The F Y 2009 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
2008 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2008 in September 2009.
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/n4.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
1059
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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, mlev@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.
1060
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
The indicator and data survey are published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2007reports/IndicatorSurveyReducingPollution032906.doc
FY 2009 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
1996-2006 and are expected on an annual basis after 2006.
The F Y 2009 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
2008 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2008 in March 2009.
Data Source: Sampling design is formulated by the USD A 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 Okay, jokay@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
1061
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
References: The indicator is published at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status.cfm?sid=83.
The indicator and data survey are published at
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/2007reports/ForestBuffersRestoredIndicator030607.doc.
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic ecosystem
health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale) [PART Long-term outcome measure
tracked annually]
• Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
Performance Database: EMAP/NCA [Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program/National Coastal Assessment] database (housed EPA/ORD/NHEERL/AED,
Narragansett, RI)(Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and
Development/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory/Gulf Ecology
Division); pre-database information housed in ORD/NHEERL facility in Gulf Breeze, FL (Gulf
Ecology Division) (pre-database refers to a temporary storage site for data where they are
examined for QA purposes, have appropriate metadata attached and undergo initial statistical
analyses); data upon QA acceptance and metadata completion are transferred to EMAP/NCA
database and are web available at www.epa.gov/emap/nca. 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
1062
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
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
1063
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
provide performance measurement information. The first long-term trends analysis will appear in
the nextNCCR (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
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.)
1064
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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.
1065
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in impaired
segments in 13 priority 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
1066
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
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.
1067
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number of 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).
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)
1068
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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, groundtruthing, 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.
1069
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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, groundtruthing, 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.
References:
Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources, Volume 1. U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, 1998
Conservation Challenge; FL,AL,MS,LA,TX Coastal Regions, National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program MX 984769
Project Period: 8/06/1999-12/31 0/2007. Website: http://www.nfwf.org
The Gulf Community Restoration Partnership Program (GCRP). This program provides acreage
through the combined efforts of the NOAA Community-Based Restoration Program and the Gulf
of Mexico Program's Gulf Ecological Management Sites (GEMS) program and the Gulf States
natural resource agencies and the Gulf of Mexico Foundation. Website:
http://www.gulfmex.org/restoration.htm
SIR 2006-5287: Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico:
1940-2002 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Achieve no net loss of 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 nutrient availability
• Maintain the overall water quality of the near shore and coastal waters of the
FKNMS
1070
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
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
1071
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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. A summary metric or species composition
indicator (CSI) that assesses the relative importance of slow-growing plants to community
composition is being computed for the 30 permanent seagrass monitoring sites. During the first
10 years of monitoring, this CSI index had an average of 0.48 + 0.04 (+ one standard error of the
mean). The significance of changes in the SCI will be assessed using these distribution
parameters. 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. Analyses are run in duplicate using independent NIST-
1072
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
traceable for each determination. If the duplicate analyses differ by more than 10%, additional
samples are run. A summary elemental content indicator metric or elemental indicator (El),
which is the mean absolute deviation of the N:P ratio of seagrass tissue from 30:1 is computed
for the 30 permanent monitoring sites. In 2006, the mean El was 8.28 + 1.47 (j^one standard
error of the mean). The significance of changes in the El will be assessed using these
distribution parameters.
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. Tools are being further developed to allow users to query data by location, date
and parameters collected. 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://research.myfwc.com/features/category sub.asp?id=2360
FY 2009 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
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
1073
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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. Stormwater 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 0.1 part
per billion.
New/Improved Performance Data or Systems: Interagency dialogue and oversight provide
ongoing reassessments that evaluate data credibility and completeness.
1074
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 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
only one or two hours per day; all but the poorest residents rely on bottled water or rain water as
1075
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent of time 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) (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.
1076
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent of days of the beach season that beaches in each of the U.S. Pacific Island
Territories monitored under the Beach Safety Program will be open and safe for
swimming. (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
1077
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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.
References: N/A.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Protect, enhance, or restore acres of wetland habitat and 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.
1078
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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: 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.
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: Lower Columbia River Restoration Inventory can be found at:
http: //www. 1 crep. org/habitat_inventory. htm
1079
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Clean-up acres of known contaminated sediments.
Performance Database: EPA's Regional Office will maintain a database of Columbia River
data from the sources described below. Clean-up data are likely to be generated at Bradford
Island, managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ); Portland Harbor, an EPA Superfund site; and other small
RCRA clean-up sites managed by ODEQ on the Columbia River.
Data Source: Information will be collected from state, federal and local agency partners.
Information from the Bradford Island clean-up will be collected by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Information from the
Portland Harbor Superfund site will be collected by EPA and other partners. Information from
RCRA clean-up sites will be collected by ODEQ. EPA directly oversees the work at Superfund
sites; for clean-up sites managed by other entities, like the Corps of Engineers, EPA accepts the
information received but does not independently verify the information.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Acres are the unit of measurement used. Acreage
reporting will be from EPA for Superfund work efforts and for non-Superfund work, acreage
will be provided by state, federal and local agency partners.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's Regional staff collect primary data based on site documents related
to individual clean-up activities. EPA directly oversees the work at Superfund sites; for clean-up
sites managed by other entities, like the Corps of Engineers, EPA accepts the information
received but does not independently verify the information. There are Quality Assurance Project
Plans (QAPPs) for individual sediment clean-up projects.
Data Quality Review: Sediment clean-up projects, such as those included under this measure,
are very expensive. Closely managed construction projects are carried out by contractors under
strict oversight by responsible parties (e.g., the Corps). The actual clean-up work is carefully
overseen by parties with huge financial interests at stake and there is little realistic opportunity
for significant error in counting acres addressed. Also, there is close monitoring of sediment
data quality, as this is an objective of these clean-up projects.
Data Limitations: The actual clean-up work is carefully overseen by parties with huge financial
interests at stake and there is little realistic opportunity for significant error in counting acres
addressed. There is close monitoring of sediment data quality, as that is the objective of these
cleanup projects.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
1080
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ecsi/ecsi.httn
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Restore the acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands. [Puget
Sound]
Performance Database: This measure is closely related to acres protected or restored for the
National Estuary Program (NEP) measure. Puget Sound is one of 28 estuaries in the NEP. 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 National Estuary Program On-Line Reporting Tool (NEPORT) is a web-
based database that EPA developed for NEPs to submit their annual Habitat reports. Links to
NEPORT can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport . Annual results have
been reported since 2000 for the NEP (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).
Data Source: The Puget Sound Partnership is the current home for the Puget Sound NEP. It
works with its partners to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. 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. "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.
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 is
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.
1081
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews conducted yet.
Data Limitations: Current data limitations include: information may be reported inconsistently
(based on different interpretations of the protection and restoration definitions), acreage may be
miscalculated or misreported, and acreage 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: Links to NEPORT can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest restrictions in acres of
shellfish bed growing areas impacted by degraded or declining water quality. [Puget
Sound]
Performance Database: This measure is related to acres protected or restored for the National
Estuary Program (NEP). Puget Sound is one of 28 estuaries in the NEP. 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.
Upgrading shellfish bed classifications is included. The National Estuary Program On-Line
Reporting Tool (NEPORT) is a web-based database that EPA developed for NEPs to submit
their annual Habitat reports. Links to NEPORT can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport. Annual results have been reported since 2000 for
the NEP (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).
Data Source: The Puget Sound Partnership is the current home for the Puget Sound NEP. It
works with its partners to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. With
1082
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
respect to shellfish bed classification the Washington State Department of Health (WDOH) is the
entity that determines and tracks the status of shellfish beds. 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 shellfish beds with
harvest restrictions lifted is not a direct measure of habitat quality, but it is a measure of
improving water quality with respect to fecal coliform contamination. This acreage serves as an
important surrogate for water quality and human health protection in Puget Sound.
QA/QC Procedures: The Washington Department of Health does the sampling and analysis,
which forms the basis of their shellfish bed status determinations. They have established QA/QC
procedures. NEP staff utilize the State reported data on areas that have been the subject of
restoration efforts.
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews of the primary data have been conducted by
EPA.
Data Limitations: Data are limited to the commercial shellfish beds which are monitored by the
WDOH.
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. An on-line reporting system—NEPORT— has been developed for the
NEPs= use that will assist in tracking habitat projects.
References: Links to NEPORT can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Remediate acres of prioritized contaminated sediments. [Puget Sound]
Performance Database: EPA's Regional office will maintain a database of Puget Sound
contaminated sediment remediation using the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation & Liability Information System (CERCLIS) used by the Agency's Superfund
program. The CERCLIS database contains information on the types of contaminated sediments/
toxics present in selected sites, as well as some baseline data against which remediation results
may be derived.
1083
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Data Source: The CERCLIS database tracks Superfund sites only. Superfund site information
includes remedial designs, feasibility studies and projects at contaminated sediment sites where
remedial actions plans have been implemented. The CERCLIS database also tracks Federal
completions, e.g., Superfund sites where federal clean-up activities have been completed.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The CERCLIS database documents the remedial
actions and Federal completions of projects to clean-up Superfund sites. Within Puget Sound, a
Federal completion could correlate to a specific contaminated sediment site and the number of
acres that were remediated. Actual data on the number of acres remediated will be in
background documents related to the particular remediation project. Activities completed, which
include prioritized contaminant remediation (removal, capping, or other remedial strategies), will
count in terms of acres, or portions of an acre remediated. Other databases, such as the EPA
Brownfields program database and the RCRA-Online database may be useful as additional
sources of contaminated sediment remediation data for the Puget Sound sites. These additional
databases may be considered in the future.
QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the Superfund staff based on site documents
related to individual clean-up activities. EPA directly oversees the work at Superfund sites.
There are standard operating procedures and data control procedures applied to CERCLIS data.
Data are reviewed quarterly and the data control plan is reviewed annually. There are Quality
Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) for individual sediment clean-up projects.
Data Quality Review: Sediment clean-up projects, such as those included under this measure,
are very expensive. Closely managed construction projects are carried out by contractors under
strict oversight by EPA. There is close monitoring of sediment data quality, as this is an
objective of these clean-up projects too. EPA does periodic audits or quality reviews on
Superfund site data and the CERCLIS database.
Data Limitations: At this time, data on contaminated sediment remediation within Puget Sound
in the CERCLIS database are limited to sites where an EPA Superfund remediation plan has
been developed and implemented. The CERCLIS database only recently began tracking the
number of acres cleaned up and the specific sites where contaminated sediment remediation has
occurred. A new module for tracking this site-specific data was added to the database in June
2007.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: At present, the EPA Regional office plans to use the existing
CERCLIS database to manage data for the performance measure.
References: Link to the Superfund Site Information System at
http ://cfpub. epa. gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm
1084
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 4
FY 2009 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 completion of planned program
outputs.
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. Additionally, completion rates of
research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
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
Endocrine Disrupters PART Program Review, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10002280.2004.html
1085
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 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.
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 the opportunity to partner with
the agency.
References: EMAP data, available at: http://www.epa.gov/docs/emap/index.html
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.
Ecological Research PART Program Review, available at:
http ://www. whitehouse. gov/omb/expectmore/summary/1 OOP 113 5.2005 .html
1086
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 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 outputs 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)
• Percent progress toward completion of a framework linking global change to air
quality. (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and relevant EPA
office needs for causal diagnosis tools and methods to determine causes of ecological
degradation and achieve positive environmental outcomes. (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and relevant EPA
office needs for environmental forecasting tools and methods to forecast the
ecological impacts of various actions and achieve positive environmental outcomes
(PART Measure).
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and relevant EPA
office needs for environmental restoration and services tools and methods to protect
and restore ecological condition and services to achieve positive environmental
outcomes (PART Measure).
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances' and other organizations' needs for methods,
models, and data to prioritize testing requirements; enhance interpretation of data
1087
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
to improve human health and ecological risk assessments; and inform decision-
making regarding high priority pesticides and toxic substances (PART Measure).
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances' and other organizations' needs for methods,
models, and data for probabilistic risk assessments to protect natural populations of
birds, fish, other wildlife, and non-target plants (PART Measure).
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances' and other organizations' needs for methods,
models, and data to make decisions related to products of biotechnology (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 completion of planned program
outputs.
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, after which no changes are made. 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. Additionally, completion rates of research outputs
are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
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.pdf.
Global Change Research Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/global.pdf
1088
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/hhra.pdf
Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/sp2.pdf
Ecological Research Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/eco.pdf
Human Health Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10004373.2005.html
Global Change Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10004307.2006.html
Human Health Risk Assessment PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10004308.2006.html
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of Ecological Research publications rated as highly-cited publications
(PART Measure).
• Percentage of Ecological Research publications in "high-impact" journals (PART
Measure).
• Percentage of Human Health program publications rated as highly cited papers
(PART Measure).
• Percentage of SP2 publications rated as highly cited publications (PART Measure).
• Percentage of SP2 publications in "high impact" journals (PART Measure).
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Searches of Thomson Scientific's Web of Science and Scopus are conducted to
obtain "times cited" data for programs' publications. Analyses are completed using Thomson's
Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI
provides access to a unique and comprehensive compilation of essential science performance
statistics and science trends data derived from Thomson's databases.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For influence and impact measures, ESI employs both
total citation counts by field and cites per paper scores. The former reveals gross influence while
the latter shows weighted influence, also called impact. JCR is a recognized authority for
evaluating journals. It presents quantifiable statistical data that provide a systematic, objective
way to evaluate the world's leading journals and their impact and influence in the global research
community. The two key measures used in this analysis to assess the journals in which a
program's papers are published are the Impact Factor and Immediacy Index. The Impact Factor
is a measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a
particular year. The Impact Factor helps evaluate a journal's relative importance, especially
when compared to other journals in the same field.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
1089
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Analyses do not capture citations within EPA regulations and other key
agency documents.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of
Research and Development's Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Research Program, available at:
http://es. epa.gov/ncer/publicati ons/bibliometrics/sp_bibliometri c_1206.pdf
Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and
Development's Ecological Research Program, available at:
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publications/bibliometrics/eco full analysis.pdf
Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Research and
Development's Human Health Research Program, available at:
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publicati ons/bibliometrics/human_heal th_bibliometric_121306.html
Human Health Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004373.2005.html
EPA Ecological Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gOv/omb/expectmore/summary/l OOP 113 5.2007.html
EPA Pesticides and Toxics Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10009012.2007.html
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• 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 the AQCD.
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on internal tracking of the time between completion of
AQCD peer review and publication of the EPA staff document.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of the usefulness of HHRA's
AQCDs, the program tracks the time between completion of AQCD peer review and publication
of the EPA staff document. The program aims to complete peer review at least 60 days prior to
publication of the draft Staff Paper for all AQCDs over the 5 year period 2006 - 2010. The goal
is to achieve 100% coverage of Agency needs by 2010.
1090
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data derived from this measure serve as a proxy for determining the utility of
HHRA's Air Quality Criteria Documents (AQCDs) for the EPA staff document.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Human Health Risk Assessment PART Assessment:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Average cost to produce Air Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents
(Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-tracking of cost per Air Quality Criteria/ Science
Assessment document.
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.
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
1091
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
References: Human Health Risk Assessment PART Assessment:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html
FY 2009 Performance 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-tracking of grants processing time.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: 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
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (PART Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on 1) self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals, and 2) spending data.
1092
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Using an approach similar to Earned Value
Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned and
actual performance for each long-term goal (specifically, determining what percent of planned
program outputs were successfully completed on time), 2) determining the difference between
planned and actual cost for each long-term goal (specifically, determining the difference between
what the program actually spent and what it intended to spent), and 3) dividing the difference
between planned and actual performance by the difference between planned and actual cost.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Program activity costs are calculated through both actual and estimated costs
when activities are shared between programs. Performance data reflects only the key program
outputs, and does not include every activity completed by a program. Additionally, completion
rates of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Global Change Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summarv/10004307.2006.html
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2009 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 estimated to be 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
1093
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
actions. Criminal enforcement cases are tracked by the Criminal Case Report System (CCRS)
which became operational in FY 2006.
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 annual information on pollution reductions for
concluded criminal prosecutions on a separate case conclusion data form.
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
1094
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
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, was supplemented in FY 2002 and updated in
FY 2004. The guide contains work examples to ensure better calculation of the amounts of
pollutants reduced or eliminated through concluded enforcement actions.
ICIS FE&C became operational in June 2006. This new data system has all of the functionality
of old ICIS (ICIS 1.0) but also has an added feature for tracking EPA enforcement and
compliance activities. In addition, another component of ICIS, "ICIS-NPDES" is being phased-
in as the database of record for the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program and it includes all federal and state enforcement, compliance and permitting
data. States are currently being migrated to ICIS NPDES from the legacy data system, the Permit
Compliance System (PCS). States are being phased-in to ICIS-NPDES in accordance with their
current data and system capabilities and the completed migration process is projected to be
completed in FY2009. As a state's data is migrated from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, so too is its
NPDES federal compliance and enforcement data. ICIS-NPDES will have a new feature that did
not exist in the legacy system and that is the capability to accept electronic data directly from
facilities. This new data reporting function is expected to increase data accuracy and timeliness.
1095
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
To date ICIS-NPDES has become the national system of record for 21 states, 2 tribes, and 9
territories.
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 2009 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) is
used to record key activities and outcomes at facilities during on-site inspections and evaluations.
Inspectors use the ICDS form while performing inspections or investigation to collect
information on on-site complying actions taken by facilities, deficiencies observed, and
compliance assistance provided. The information from the completed ICDS form is entered into
ICIS or reported manually. This measure was selected because it directly counts the complying
actions taken by the facility to address deficiencies communicated by the inspector during on-site
inspections/evaluations. ICDS data can be used to identify trends and generate targeting
strategies.
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.
1096
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 the legacy data bases (with the exception of some regions participating in the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) database pilot who must still report manually). Legacy databases still
operational include Air Facility System (AFS), RCRAInfo, and PCS for those states not migrated
overtoICIS-NPDES.
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 are
being phased-in to ICIS-NPDES in accordance with their current data and system capabilities
and the completed migration process is projected to be completed in FY 2009.
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 2009 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.
1097
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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: Compliance Assistance (CA) 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. The
Compliance Assistance Conclusion Data Sheet (CACDS) was created to facilitate entry of data
in ICIS on the on-site CA visits. ICIS produces the percentage by dividing the number of
respondents to each of two follow-up survey questions by the number of respondents for each
question who answered affirmatively. 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: At the request of OMB, OECA has agreed to add language to caveat CA
results in EPA's annual Performance and Accountability Report. The language will explain that
our GPRA performance measures are not calculated from a representative sample of the
regulated entity universe. The percentages are based, in part, on the number of regulated entities
that answer affirmatively to questions on our voluntary surveys and do not account for the
number of regulated entities who chose not to answer these questions or a survey.
Error Estimate: None
New & Improved Data or Systems: EPA continues to improve and/or modify elements of the
compliance assistance module in ICIS based on use of the system. OECA will conduct a study
and develop a strategy to use statistically valid techniques to tie outcomes to EPA-provided
compliance assistance activities. Beginning with a pilot survey in FY 2008, EPA will conduct a
survey every three years of a statistically-valid sample of compliance assistance recipients to
measure behavior changes resulting from compliance assistance.
1098
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of pounds of reduced (in millions) of priority chemicals as measured by
National Partnership for Environmental Priorities members.
• Number of pounds of priority chemicals reduced from the environment per Federal
government costs [PART efficiency measure]
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
1099
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
(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 and Assumptions: 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.
Additionally, when the partner is also a TRI regulated facility, achievement data are verified
against TRI reporting
Suitability: 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.
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
1100
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) indices are available at
http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/.
1101
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program participants (PART
measure)
• BTUs of energy reduced, conserved or offset by P2 program participants
• Gallons of water reduced by P2 program participants
• Business, institutional and government cost reduced by P2 program participants
(PART measure)
The Agency's Pollution Prevention programs, or results centers, include Green Chemistry (GC),
Design for the Environment (DfE), Green Engineering (GE), Regional Offices Pollution
Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx), Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP),
Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare (PSH), and Green Suppliers Network (GSN). Each of
these program/results centers operate 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," aggregating annual progress toward the goals.
Performance Database:
Green Chemistry (GC): EPA has developed an electronic metrics database ("matrix") 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 as well as water
and energy saved 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 2007.
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 varies by project, and generally includes 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
1102
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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, where available.
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. While GranTrack has been used for a number of years it has some
limitations. This year the program is exploring options for upgrading GranTrack and/or using
additional tools to simplify and improve results reporting.
Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx): There are 8 regional P2 Information centers
which coordinate and supply information, training and conferences for local and state technical
assistance providers as well as businesses. These centers report to EPA through grant reports.
These 8 P2Rx centers also host regional modules that contribute to the National P2 Results
system that was developed under a grant from the EPA National Environmental Information
Exchange Network (NEIEN) program. Any program can enter measures of outputs and
outcomes into this data system. Over 30 state-level P2 organizations have signed Memoranda of
Agreements to provide data. The P2Rx centers have trained and assisted organizations in
entering their data. EPA is conducting an evaluation of P2Rx services to estimate the portion of
potential customers these centers reach. EPA support of these regional centers and the technical
assistance, publications, training, and information supplied by the P2Rx centers contributes to
national P2 progress. To capture this indirect effect of EPA's role, 10% of the results reported
through the P2Rx center will be counted in EPA performance measures.
Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare (PSH) Program: The Partnership for Sustainable
Healthcare (PSH) program is the new name for EPA's continued effort with the health care
sector, as the former "Hospitals for a Healthy Environment" (H2E) program (now the H2E
organization has become a fully independent non-profit organization.). PSH works, in
collaboration with the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS), and H2E, as
NCMS' sub-grantee, in providing technical assistance to the health care sector. H2E maintains
its own electronic program database. Data are collected voluntarily from Partners on an ongoing
and continuous basis. For pounds of hazardous materials, data are requested on mercury and
1103
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 and water conserved, water pollution reduced,
air emissions reduced, hazardous waste reduced (Ibs/year), and toxic/hazardous chemical use
reduced (Ibs/year).
Environmentally Preferable Products (EPP): 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 annual reporting information from FEC
partners. EPP staff run these reporting data through the Electronics Environmental Benefits
Calculator to calculate pounds of 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 Electronics
Environmental Benefits Calculator to calculate pounds of 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 2007 data will be collected in
January 2008.
Data Sources: GC: Industry and academia submit nominations annually to the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in response to the annual Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Awards. Environmental and economic benefit information is included in the
nomination packages. Qualitative and quantitative benefit information is pulled from the
nominations and entered in the metrics database. The metrics database pulls this public benefit
information from the nominations. The database currently has information on all technologies
nominated through 2007.
DJE: 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.
1104
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
GE: Data come from 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 current P2 Grant Database, Gran
Track. In addition, over the coming year the program is piloting the use of a new tool to assist
grantees in projecting and determining grants results and to assist regional project officers in
compiling and analyzing those results.
P2Rx: P2Rx center data are currently secured through the National P2 Results system, compiled
through 8 Regional modules. In the future, more targeted results could be secured through web-
based surveys of customers, pre and post testing of training attendees and case studies following
long term impact of the use of P2Rx services and information.
PSH: Because the PSH program is a voluntary program, the information collected is voluntarily
submitted by hospital Partners. The PSH program maintains an ICR for the collection of data
which allows EPA to collect data from third parties under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
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: 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 and Assumptions: GC: The public information is tracked directly through internal
record-keeping systems. Annual benefits are assumed to reoccur. The performance data, while
collected by individual centers, is acceptable for the purpose of performance measurement for
1105
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
the program, as it addresses the specific measures and reflects an aggregated and quality
reviewed dataset.
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/assumptions for each project's measures.
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. The
program is developing a new data collection tool (methodology) for grantees that is designed to
increase the consistency of their data collection methods and to offer a consistent set of costing
assumptions.
P2Rx: Data reported by state and local programs in the National P2 Results system will be
collected and compiled by the regional centers. Some portion of these results, based on an
evaluation of the portion of the customer base reached by the center in each region, will be
attributed to the P2Rx center for that region. The ability to attribute environmental outcomes to
Web-based information and training will rely on customer survey information and Web site user
statistics.
PSH: The data comes directly from program Partners, specifically hospitals. No models or
assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
GSN: The data are aggregated by NIST MEP headquarters and reported to EPA on a quarterly
basis in September, December, March, and June. The data are aggregated to maintain
confidentiality for all companies participating in the program. No models or statistical methods
are employed.
EPP: For FEC, the program assumes that partners report accurate data. The assumptions
needed for the Calculator to translate environmental attributes and activities into environmental
benefits are relatively extensive and are laid out in the Calculator's inputs (e.g., the average
lifecycle of a computer, the weight of packaging for a computer, etc.). The assumptions were
reviewed when the Calculator underwent the peer review process. The Electronics
Environmental Benefits Calculator assists institutional purchasers in: 1) measuring the
environmental and economic benefits of purchasing environmentally preferable electronics; 2)
1106
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
enabling energy efficiency features on electronics during use; 3) extending the useful life of
electronics; and 4) disposing of old electronics in an environmentally sound manner through
reuse or recycling. 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.
Suitability: Hazardous pounds reduced, dollars saved, BTUs of energy reduced conserved or
offset, and gallons of water reduced represent the four Pollution Prevention measures. These
annual measures have corresponding long term goals identified in EPA's 2006-2011 strategic
plan and are suitable for year to year comparisons due to the program's ability to show annual
progress towards reaching these long term goals.
QA/QC Procedures: All Pollution Prevention and Toxics programs operate under the
Information Quality Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines, as
well as under the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Quality Management Plan (QMP) ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances," June 2003), and the programs will ensure that those standards
and procedures are applied to this effort. The Quality Management Plan is for internal use only.
GC: 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, nominations
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. Quantitative
benefits are periodically reviewed to be sure they were accurately captured from the
nominations.
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.
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. The program has been working with the regional
offices this past year to develop consistent QA procedures, which can be applied at the beginning
of the grant and throughout the life of the grant.
1107
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
P2Rx: Data entered into the National P2 Results system will undergo technical screening review by
P2Rx centers and EPA regional and Headquarters staff.
PSH: Data undergo technical screening review by the grantee (National Center for
Manufacturing Sciences, which administers the program through a cooperative agreement)
before being placed in the database. QA/QC plan is a part of the requirement of the cooperative
agreement.
GSN: Data are 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:. Regarding FEC, EPEAT, and Janitorial Products, the calculators of environmental
benefits (e.g., the Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator and the Green Cleaning
Calculator) underwent internal and external review during their development phases. Regarding
FEC and EPEAT, instructions and guidelines are provided to partners on how to report data.
Reporting forms are reviewed by EPA management when they are submitted. 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 and under the OPPT's Quality Management
Plan (QMP).
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/greenchemi stry/
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.
GE: Data collected will be reviewed to meet data quality requirements.
1108
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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. Data
will undergo technical screening review by EPA Regional and Headquarters staff and their
contractor before being placed into GranTrack. The P2 program has been working with the
regional offices this past year to develop consistent QA procedures which can be applied at the
beginning of the grant and throughout the life of the grant.
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.
PSH: Not applicable
GSN: Not applicable.
EPP: For FEC, data are entered on-line with an additional error-checking function on the
online form. FEC staff also review the data to ensure that it is sensible, given the context. 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:
GC: Nominations sometimes omit data for a given technology due to confidential business
information. Nominations for the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program are
in the public domain.. 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.
1109
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
DJE: 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.
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). In addition, the program is working this year on developing and
integrating new tools to assist grantees in projecting and determining results and to assist project
officers in interpreting and reporting those results.
P2Rx: Limitations arise from variability in individual state and local P2 programs and their
reporting sources, QA/QC procedures, and what is reported. Differences may arise in how
programs quantify environmental benefits, based on state or local legislative requirements.
PSH: 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.
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: FEC and EPEAT have a built-in reliance on partners for data reporting.
1110
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Error Estimate:
GE: There may be instances in which environmental benefits are not clearly quantified. In those
instances, the data will be excluded.
DfE: The program simply compiles data and does not conduct statistical analysis. Error
estimates are not available.
P2Rx: The program simply compiles data and does not conduct statistical analysis. Error
estimates are not available.
Regional Offices: Any errors detected during internal technical review of performance data
submitted would be addressed, either through correction of data or elimination of data.
PSH: The program does not use a statistical approach to collect the data and therefore does not
have confidence intervals for the performance estimates.
GSN: Not applicable.
GC: The program simply compiles data and does not conduct statistical analysis. Error
estimates are not available.
EPP: 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.
The program's system for estimating and reporting results will undergo further change and
improvement this coming year. We anticipate working to improve the process of projecting and
reporting results through the development of new tools and methodologies. We anticipate that
these changes will simplify results reporting for grantees and will improve the credibility and
predictability of those results.
1111
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
P2Rx: This center's survey and data collection systems are under initial implementation.
Improvements will be based on the outcome of the pending evaluation
PSH: The H2E organization is in the process of commercializing a 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 2008. The H2E organization has agreed to share the consolidated
information with EPA when data collection begins.
References:
GC: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/
DfE: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/
GE: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/
P2 Programs: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm
http: //www. p2. org/workgroup/B ackground. cfm
http ://www. epa. gov/Networkg/
PSH: http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/psh.htm
GSN: www.greensuppliers.gov
EPP: Information about FEC's annual reporting is on the FEC web site at:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/report.htm
Information about the Electronics Environmental Benefit Calculator is on the FEC web
site at:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources/bencalc.htm
The EPEAT Subscriber and License Agreement is available on the EPEAT web
site at: http://www.epeat.net/docs/Agreement.pdf
Regional: http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/local.htm
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent change from baseline in reductions of Design for the Environment (DfE)
chemicals of concern per federal dollar invested in the DfE program [PART
efficiency measure]
EPA measures the accomplishments of the Design for the Environment (DfE) Program by
comparing reductions in hazardous chemicals achieved to program resources, including FTE,
overhead and extramural dollars spent.
Performance Database: The DfE program 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 Office of Air and Radiation
1112
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
on DfE approaches for regulating Local Area Sources, such as Auto Refinishing). Key data
elements used to calculate the efficiency measure are the quantity of hazardous chemicals
reduced and spending information obtained from the OPPT Finance Central database. The
efficiency measure numerator is the total pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced and the
denominator is the annual DfE program resources expended.
Data Source: 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.
Resource data are from OPPT Finance Central
Methods, Assumptions: 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 are 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 provide the
measure for reduction. DfE's Data Program Tracking Spreadsheet includes the
methods/assumptions for each project's measures. 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.
Suitability rHazardous pounds reduced is one of four Pollution Prevention annual measures
which have corresponding long term goals identified in EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan and are
suitable for year to year comparisons due to the program's ability to show annual progress
towards reaching the long term goals. The indicators used for this measure are suitable because
reductions in cost per pound of hazardous chemicals reduced are expected to result from
improvements in program implementation. These cost reductions will enable EPA to achieve the
goals of the Design for the Environment program with greater efficiency.
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 are confidential. The information
made public information is limited to aggregated values.
1113
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Error Estimate: Due to the sampling methodology, no error estimate is possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Each year additional data are 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 program.
References:
http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html
The DfE Program Tracking Spreadsheet contains Confidential Business Information.
FY 2009 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 2009 data represents members'
calendar year 2008 performance. That data will be reported to the Performance Track program
by April 1, 2009. The data will then be reviewed, aggregated, and available for external
reporting in September 2009. (Calendar year 2009 data will become available in September
2008.)
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. Performance Track facilities
are required to have 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
1114
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 goals, 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 reporting on each indicator constantly
changes. In a few instances, members make replacement goals 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.
Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are estimated based on facilities' reductions in energy
use. To estimate greenhouse gas emissions from energy use, Performance Track uses EPA's
Power Profiler tool (http://www.epa.gov/solar/powerprofiler.htm), which uses emission factors
from the EPA database Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID).
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
1115
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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. Performance Track facilities
are required to have 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 estimate or round data. Also, errors are made in converting units and
in calculations. As mentioned above, in cases where EPA identifies the possibility for these
types of errors, the facility is asked to resubmit the data. In general, 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.
1116
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
FY 2009 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 FY09, six (6) projects will be
reaching completion, at which point they are evaluated, and the target is for four (4)
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
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 2007, OPEI began using the data to
generate a regular 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.
1117
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Thus, performance assessment occurs only at the end of a project. Projects we will report on in
2009 are projects initiated in 2005 and 2006.
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, storm water
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., reduction in VOC emissions in pounds).
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
1118
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 2009 will be based upon projects funded in FY 2005 and FY 2006.
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.
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 initiated 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 published its first State Innovation Grants
Program progress report in early 2008.
1119
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percent of tribes implementing federal regulatory environmental programs in
Indian country. (Strategic Target & PART Measure)
• Percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental monitoring and
assessment activities in Indian country. (Strategic Target & PART Measure)
• Percent of tribes with an environmental program. (Strategic Target & 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 2006-2011 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. This serves as
the performance database for all of the strategic targets, 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. The
system is password protected; 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 implementing Federal regulatory environmental
programs in Indian country" tracks the number of "Treatment in a manner similar to a State"
(TAS) program approvals or primacies and execution of "Direct Implementation Tribal
Cooperative Agreements (DITCAs)."
1120
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
The performance measure, "Percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental
monitoring and assessment activities in Indian country," reports the number of active Quality
Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) for monitoring activities. 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 continually and are reported mid-year and at the end of
each fiscal year.
The performance measure, "Percent of tribes with an environmental program," counts tribes that
have an EPA-funded environmental office and/or coordinator staffed in the most current year
and that have at least one of the following indicators:
• completed a Tier III Tribal Environmental Agreement (TEA) that specifies actions by EPA
and the Tribe, and includes monitoring, as evidenced by a document signed by the tribal
government and EPA;
• established environmental laws, codes, ordinances or regulations as evidenced by a document
signed by the tribal government;
• completed solid and/or hazardous waste implementation activities; or
• completed an inter-governmental environmental agreement (e.g. State-Tribal Memorandum
of Agreement (MO A), Federal-Tribal MO A).
EPA Regional project officers managing tribes with an environmental program input data,
classified by tribe, into the Objective 5.3 Reporting System, to derive a national cumulative total.
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 and Assumptions: The Objective 5.3 Reporting System contains all the information
for reporting on AIEO performance measures and PART measures. The information is entered
into standard query fields in the data system. Thus, there is no allowance for differences in
reporting across EPA's Regional offices, and national reports can be assembled in a common
framework. The assumption is the authorized person who enters the data is knowledgeable about
the performance status.
Suitability: These measures represent progression toward the goal of improving human health
and the environment in Indian country by helping tribes plan, develop and establish
environmental protection programs.
1121
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
QA/QC Procedures: The procedures for collecting and reporting on the Objective 5.3
performance measures require that program managers certify the accuracy of the data submitted
by the regions to AIEO. This certification procedure is consistent with EPA Information Quality
Guidelines (See http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/index.html for more
information.)
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. This procedure generally follows
guidance provided in EPA Information Quality Guidelines. (See
http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.html for more information.)
Data Limitations: Because data are input by EPA's Regional Project Officers on an ongoing
basis, there may be a time lag between when a tribal program status has been achieved and when
the data are entered 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. Present focus is on Operations and Maintenance activities for the Tribal Program
Enterprise Architecture beginning in FY08.
References:
Objective 5.3 Reporting System: https://iasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TATS/tats_prv/entry_page
OCFO Information Quality Guidelines: http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.html
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Average time to hire non-SES positions from date vacancy closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in working days.
Performance Database: Data is derived from EZ-Hire, EPA's implementation of Monster
Inc.'s Quickhire system used for application development, posting, application submission, and
1122
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
screening. These data is tracked internally and reported on a fiscal year and quarterly basis. The
data are reported by the servicing human resources offices 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 are 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 is downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet and is 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: In November 2006, EPA upgraded to the web-based Hiring
Management version of Monster Inc. 's Quickhire hiring management system. This represents a
significant milestone building on EPA's early adoption of this system.
References: EZ-Hire
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Average time to hire SES positions from date vacancy closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in working days.
Performance Database: Data is manually maintained by the Executive Resources Staff (ERS)
in a Word format. Data is updated thorough-out the various stages of the hiring process.
1123
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Data Source: The Office of Human Resources' Executive Resources Staff.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data from the weekly report is tracked and reported
quarterly. ERS staff reviews the results and further investigates any data anomalies prior to
finalizing the quarterly report. 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.)
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 it 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.
References: Executive Resources Staff
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Agency managers' satisfaction with the initial stages of the human resources
hiring process, as measured by the average score across 4 questions (2A through
2D) in the OPM Management Hiring Satisfaction Survey.
This performance measure examines the selecting official's satisfaction levels in these facets of
the vacancy announcement process:
2A- the job summary accurately described the position;
2B -1 was involved in the development of the evaluation criteria;
2C - the evaluation criteria encompassed the Knowledge, Skills, Abilities (KSAs) and
competencies needed for the job; and,
2D -1 received a referral list in a timely manner.
Measured percentage is percent of respondents selecting strongly agree or agree.
1124
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Performance Database: Data are derived from OPM's Management Satisfaction Survey which
is part of the Government-wide effort to improve the Federal hiring process. OPM releases
survey results quarterly based on feedback from selecting officials on questions regarding the
Agency's recruitment process. The survey targets satisfaction with the job announcement,
resume contents, applicant quality and quantity, and hiring flexibilities available to obtain the
candidate of choice. Agencies use the data to identify, develop and implement plans to improve
their recruitment efforts.
Data Source: OPM's Management Satisfaction Survey
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The survey is web-based and administered by OPM
with facilitation by EPA's HR offices. OPM provides the results of the survey once a quarter.
Only managers who have made selections for positions are participants in that quarter's survey,
and the feedback in the survey is a reflection of that manager's experience in the hiring process.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA uses a certification form signed by the selecting official that verifies
that they have taken the survey. That certificate is included in the case file for that vacancy and
is included in the document review as part of the Agency's Human Capital Assessment Program.
OPM is responsible for compiling the survey results in a quality manner and preparing the
Agency's reports. OHR staff review the results, and identify any areas of the hiring process that
may need further investigation.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: OPM's Management Satisfaction Survey
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Maintenance and improvement of Mission Critical Occupation (MCO) employee
competencies, as measured by proficiency levels of competencies in MCOs
reassessed in FY 2009.
Performance Database: Plateau is a contractor supplied database and assessment tool. The
database is populated with competency/skills of selected MCOs that are deemed necessary for
successful performance. It includes survey data from employee self-assessments and supervisory
assessments on employee competency/skills.
1125
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Survey data have been used to assess the
competencies of EPA's 6 priority MCOs. Reassessments of the assessed MCOs are repeated and
compared to previous assessment baselines.
Data Source: Plateau includes survey data from employee self-assessments and supervisory
assessments on employee competency/skills.
QA/QC Procedures: The Office of Human Resources will continue to include the supervisory
assessment to affirm whether the selected MCO has made progress in developing toward the
targeted level of proficiency, identified for successful performance in the necessary
competencies.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Employees self-assess their competency/skills which are averaged with
supervisor assessments, when available. The reliability of the data is subject to scoring bias as
well as over-inflation or under-inflation of self assessments.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: This is a new competency/skills database.
References: N/A
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption in EPA's 34 reporting
facilities from the FY 2003 baseline
Performance Database: The Agency's contractor provides energy consumption information
quarterly and annually. The Agency keeps the energy consumption data in the "Energy and
Water Database," which is a collection of numerous spreadsheets. The contractor is responsible
for reviewing and quality assuring/quality checking (QA/QC-ing) the data.
Data Source: The Agency's contractor requests and collects quarterly energy and water
reporting forms, utility invoices, and fuel consumption logs from energy reporters at each of
EPA's "reporting" facilities (the facilities for which EPA pays the utility bills directly to the
utility company). The reported 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
1126
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
fuel oil). In instances when data are missing and cannot be retrieved, reported data are based on a
proxy or historical average.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's contractor performs an exhaustive review of all invoices and fuel
logs to verify that reported consumption and cost data are correct. EPA's Sustainable Facilities
Practices Branch compares reported and verified energy use at each reporting facility against
previous years' verified data to see if there are any significant and unexplainable increases or
decreases in energy consumption 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 2009 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 has been performed in accordance with a CDX Quality Assurance
Plan ["Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Central Data Exchange," 10/8/2004] and the CDX
Design Document v.3. Appendix K registration procedures [Central Data Exchange Electronic
1127
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Reporting Prototype System Requirements: Version 3; Document number: EP005S3; December
2000]. Specifically, data are reviewed for authenticity and integrity. Automated edit checking
routines are performed in accordance with program specifications and the CDX Quality
Assurance Plan. This Plan is currently being updated to incorporate new technology and policy
requirements and a draft is scheduled to be released at the end of FY 2007 [contact: Sana
Hamady, 202-566-1674]. In FY 2008, CDX will develop robust quality criteria, which will
include performance metric results, for the upcoming CDX contract recompete scheduled to be
awarded in FY 2009.
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,
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.
1128
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).
FY 2009 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
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: Annual Information Security Reports to OMB:
http ://intranet. epa. gov/itsecurity/progreviews/: OMB guidance memorandum:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-19.pdf: ASSERT web site
https://cfmt.rtpnc.epa.gov/assert/index.cfm: NIST Special Publication 800-53, Recommended
1129
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
Security Controls for Federal Information Systems. February 2005:
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 2009 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 actions
taken and 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.
1130
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
4-Year Performance Data
Annual Performance Goals and Measures
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 General15, 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 2007, the OIG
implemented an Audit Follow-up Policy to independently verify the status of Agency actions on
OIG recommendations, which serve as the basis for OIG intermediate outcome results reported
in the OIG Performance Measurement and Results System. The quality of the data will continue
to improve as staff gain greater familiarity with the system and measures, and as OIG performs
follow-up verification reviews to identify and track actions and impacts. The OIG is also
implementing full costing of OIG products to measure relative return on investment from the
application of OIG resources.
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.16
Government Auditing Standards (2007 Revision), General Accounting Office, GAO-07-162G, January 2007;
Available on the Internet at www.gao.gov/govaud/vbkO 1 .htm, last updated December 2007.
16 U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Evaluations, and Other Publications;
Available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/oig, last updated October 2007.
1131
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Appendix
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies 1132
Environmental Programs 1132
Enabling Support Programs 1162
Major Management Challenges 1167
EPA User Fee Program 1193
Working Capital Fund 1196
Acronyms for Statutory Authorities 1197
STAG Categorical Program Grants 1202
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses 1202
Program Projects by Appropriation 1212
Program Projects by Program Area 1229
Discontinued Programs 1243
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds 1244
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training 1245
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative Agreements 1246
Expected Benefits of the President's 1247
E-Government Initiatives 1247
-------
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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 particulate matter (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
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (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
1132
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
assessments and toxic emission reduction strategies in different regions of the country. EPA is
also working with the National Highway Transportation Administration and the Department of
Agriculture on the greenhouse gas transportation rules.
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.
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
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,
1133
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
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
1134
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
The Radiation Program coordinates with Federal and state partners through the use of the
Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS); its members include NRC,
DOE, DOD, HHS, DOL, DOT, and DHS and their goal is to improve consistency in Federal
radiation protection programs. EPA continues to work with other 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. In addition, the program collaborates with state and local officials to maintain
and operate the national network of radiation air monitors and continues to improve the sharing
of information with DHS, DOE, other federal agencies, and the states to improve EPA's ability to
contribute to interagency emergency response and environmental characterization during
radiological emergencies.
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.
1135
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
This coordination is evident in work recently completed by an interagency task force, including
representatives from the Department of State, EPA, DOE, USD A, DOT, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Department of Commerce, USGCRP, NOAA, NASA, and the DoD, to
prepare the Third National Communication to the Secretariat as required under the Framework
Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The FCCC was ratified by the United States Senate in
1992. A portion of the Third National Communication describes policies and measures (such as
ENERGY STAR and EPA's Clean Automotive Technology initiative) undertaken by the U.S. to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, implementation status of the policies and measures, and their
actual and projected benefits. One result of this interagency review process has been a
refinement of future goals for these policies and measures which were communicated to the
Secretariat of the FCCC in 2002. The "U.S. Climate Action Report 2002: Third National
Communication of the United States of America under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change" is available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/usnc3.pdf.
EPA works primarily with the Department of State, USAID and DOE as well as with regional
organizations in implementing climate-related programs and projects. In addition, EPA partners
with others worldwide, including international organizations such as the United Nations
Environment Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, the International Energy
Agency, the OECD, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and our colleagues in
Canada, Mexico, Europe and Japan.
Objective: Enhance Science and Research:
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
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
1 For more information, see .
2 For more information, see .
3 For more information, see .
1136
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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.
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
1137
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
well as local departments of environment, health and recreation who frequently have strong
interests in watershed projects.
1138
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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.
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
1139
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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.
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
1140
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (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.
The Drinking Water and Water Quality research programs plan to collaborate with the American
Water Works Association Research Foundation, the Global Water Research Coalition, the
National Research Council, Institute for Research in Construction, the American Society for
Civil Engineers and several university Research organizations including Penn State University,
1141
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
the University of Houston, Louisiana Tech University, and the Polytechnic University of New
York to carry out the new Water Infrastructure Initiative.
Goal 3-Land Preservation and Restoration
Objective: Reserve 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 13423 and in tracking and reporting purchases of products made with
recycled contents, in promoting electronic stewardship and achieving waste reduction and
recycling goals.
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/and Remedial Program
The Superfund Remedial program coordinates with several other Federal agencies, such as
ATSDR or NIEHS, in providing numerous Superfund related services in order to accomplish the
program's mission. In FY 2009, EPA will have active interagency agreements with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the Interior (DOI).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also substantially contributes to the cleanup of Superfund
sites by providing technical support for the design and construction of many fund-financed
1142
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
remediation projects through site-specific interagency agreements. This Federal partner has the
technical design and construction expertise and contracting capability needed to assist EPA
regions in implementing most of Superfund's remedial action projects. This agency also provides
technical on-site support to Regions in the enforcement oversight of numerous construction
projects performed by private 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.
EPA has entered into Interagency Agreements (lAGs) with DoD and DOE to expedite the
cleanup and transfer of Federal properties, and was recently approached by the U.S. Coast Guard
for oversight assistance as they focus on downsizing their lighthouse inventory. A Memorandum
of Understanding has been negotiated with DoD to continue the Agency's oversight support
through September 30, 2011 for the acceleration of cleanup and property transfer at Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installations affected by the first four rounds of BRAC. In
addition, EPA has signed an IAG with DOE 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 joint EPA/DOE IAG has received recognition as a model for
potential use at other DOE field offices.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The RCRA Permitting and Corrective Action Programs coordinate closely with other Federal
agencies, primarily the DoD and DOE, which have many sites in the corrective action and
permitting universe. Encouraging Federal facilities to meet the RCRA Corrective Action and
permitting program's goals remains a top priority.
RCRA Programs also coordinate with the Department of Commerce and the Department of State
to ensure the safe movement of domestic and international shipments of hazardous waste.
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
1143
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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. EPA implements the Emergency
Preparedness program coordination with the Department of Homeland Security and other
Federal agencies to deliver Federal assistance to state, local, and Tribal governments during
natural disasters and other major environmental incidents. This requires continuous coordination
with many Federal, state and local agencies. The Agency participates with other Federal agencies
to develop national planning and implementation policies at the operational level.
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.
Super fund Enforcement
As required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and Executive Order (EO) 12580, OSRE coordinates with other federal agencies in
their use of CERCLA enforcement authority. This includes the coordinated use of CERCLA
enforcement authority at individual hazardous waste sites that are located on both nonfederal
land (EPA jurisdiction) and federal lands (other agency jurisdiction). As required by EO13016,
the Agency also coordinates the use of CERCLA section 106 administrative order authority by
other Departments and agencies.
EPA also coordinates with the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce to ensure
that appropriate and timely notices required under CERCLA are sent to the Natural Resource
Trustees. The Department of Justice also provides assistance to EPA with judicial referrals
seeking recovery of response costs incurred by the U.S., injunctive relief to implement response
actions, or enforcement of other CERCLA requirements.
Super fundFederal Facilities Enforcement Program
The Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement program ensures that 1) all Federal facility sites
on the National Priority List have interagency agreements (lAGs), which provide enforceable
schedules for the progression of the entire cleanup; 2) these lAGs are monitored for compliance;
and 3) Federal sites that are transferred to new owners are transferred in an environmentally
1144
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
responsible manner. 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.
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, DOI, 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 2009, 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, DOI (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
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.
4 For more information please go to: Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Models MOU,
http://www.iscmem.org/Memorandum.htm
1145
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Goal 4-Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Coordination with state lead agencies and with the USDA provides added impetus to the
implementation of the Certification and Training program. States also provide essential
activities in developing and implementing the Endangered Species and Worker Protection
programs and are involved in numerous special projects and investigations, including emergency
response efforts. The Regions provide technical guidance and assistance to the states and Tribes
in the implementation of all pesticide program activities.
EPA uses a range of outreach and coordination approaches for pesticide users, agencies
implementing various pesticide programs and projects, and the general public. Outreach and
coordination activities are essential to effective implementation of regulatory decisions. In
addition coordination activities protect workers and endangered species, provide training for
pesticide applicators, promote integrated pest management and environmental stewardship, and
support for compliance through EPA's Regional programs and those of the states and Tribes.
In addition to the training that EPA provides to farm workers and restricted use pesticide
applicators, EPA works with the State Cooperative Extension Services designing and providing
specialized training for various groups. Such training includes instructing private applicators on
the proper use of personal protective equipment and application equipment calibration, handling
spill and injury situations, farm family safety, preventing pesticide spray drift, and pesticide and
container disposal. Other specialized training is provided to public works employees on grounds
maintenance, to pesticide control operators on proper insect identification, and on weed control
for agribusiness.
EPA coordinates with and uses information from a variety of Federal, state and international
organizations and agencies in our efforts to protect the safety of America's health and
environment from hazardous or higher risk pesticides. In May 1991, the USDA implemented the
Pesticide Data Program (PDF) to collect objective and statistically reliable data on pesticide
residues on food commodities. This action was in response to public concern about the effects of
pesticides on human health and environmental quality. EPA uses PDF data to improve dietary
risk assessment to support the registration of pesticides for minor crop uses.
PDF is critical to implementing the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The system provides
improved data collection of pesticide residues, standardized analytical and reporting methods,
and sampling of foods most likely consumed by infants and children. PDF sampling, residue,
testing and data reporting are coordinated by the Agricultural Marketing Service using
cooperative agreements with ten participating states representing all regions of the country. PDF
serves as a showcase for Federal-state cooperation on pesticide and food safety issues.
FQPA requires EPA to consult with other government agencies on major decisions. EPA,
USDA and FDA work closely together using both a MOU and working committees to deal with
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.
1146
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
(TFCS), 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
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."
1147
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
As a member of the Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics, EPA helps to assure that key
indicators associated with important aspects of older Americans' lives are considered in reports
such as "Older Americans 2004: Key Indicators of Weil-Being."
EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) support the Pediatric
Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSUs) which provide education and consultation
services on children's environmental health issues to health professionals, public health officials,
and the public.
EPA works closely with other Federal agencies to improve children's health in schools. For
example, EPA has incorporated into the new Healthy School Environments Assessment Tool
(Healthy SEAT), a number of recommendations and requirements from the Department of
Education, the CDC, DOT, DOE, CPSC and OSHA.
EPA relies on data from HHS to help assess the risk of pesticides to children. Other
collaborative efforts that go beyond our reliance on the data they collect include developing and
validating methods to analyze domestic and imported food samples for organophosphates,
carcinogens, neurotoxins and other chemicals of concern. These joint efforts protect Americans
from unhealthful pesticide residue levels.
EPA's chemical testing data provides information for the OSHA worker protection programs,
NIOSH for research, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for informing
consumers about products through labeling. EPA frequently consults with these Agencies on
project design, progress and the results of chemical testing projects.
The Agency works with a full range of stakeholders on homeland security issues: USD A, CDC,
other Federal agencies, industry and the scientific community. Review of the agents that may be
effective against anthrax has involved GSA, State Department, Research Institute for Infectious
Disease, FDA, EOSA, USPS, and others, and this effort will build on this network.
The Acute Exposure Guidelines (AEGL) program is a collaborative effort that includes ten
Federal agencies (EPA, DHS, DOE, DoD, DOT, NIOSH, OSHA, CDC, ATSDR, and FDA),
numerous state agencies, private industry, academia, emergency medical associations, unions,
and other organizations in the private sector. The program also has been supported
internationally by the OECD and includes active participation by the Netherlands, Germany and
France.
The success of EPA's lead program is due in part to effective coordination with other Federal
agencies, states and Indian Tribes through the President's Task Force on Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks to Children. EPA will continue to coordinate with HUD to clarify how
new rules may affect existing EPA and HUD regulatory programs, and with the FHWA and
OSHA on worker protection issues. EPA will continue to work closely with state and Federally
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.
1148
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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. 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
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.
1149
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and the North American
Development Bank (NADBank), which manages the Border Environment 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 and Mexico's
national water commission, Comision Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), to further efforts to
improve drinking 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.
Brownfields
EPA continues to lead the Brownfields Federal Partnership. The Partnership includes more than
20 federal agencies dedicated to the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields properties.
Partner agencies work together to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and redevelop brownfields.
The Brownfields Federal Partnership's on-going efforts include promoting the Portfields and
Mine-Scarred Lands projects and looking for additional opportunities to jointly promote
community revitalization by participating in multi-agency collaborative projects, holding regular
meetings with federal partners, and supporting regional efforts to coordinate federal
revitalization support to state and local agencies.
Environmental Justice
Through the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG), EPA is
working in partnership with ten other federal agencies to address the environmental and public
health issues facing communities with environmental justice concerns. In 2009, the IWG will
continue its efforts to work collaboratively and constructively with all levels of government, and
throughout the public and private sectors. The issues range from lead exposure, asthma, safe
drinking water and sanitation systems to hazardous waste clean-up, renewable energy/wind
power development, and sustainable environmentally-sound economies. The IWG is utilizing
1150
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA's collaborative problem-solving model, based on the experiences of federal collaborative
partnerships, to improve the federal government's effectiveness in addressing the environmental
and public health concerns facing communities. As the lead agency, EPA shares its knowledge,
experience and offers assistance to other federal agencies as they enhance their strategies to
integrate environmental justice into their programs, policies and activities.
Objective: Ecosystems
National Estuary Program
Effectively implementing successful comprehensive management plans for the estuaries in the
NEP depends on the cooperation, involvement, and commitment of Federal and state agency
partners that have some role in protecting and/or managing those estuaries. Common Federal
partners include NOAA, USFWS, COE, and USDA. Other partners include state and local
government agencies, universities, industry, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and
members of the public.
Wetlands
Federal agencies share the goal of increasing wetlands functions and values, and implementing a
fair and flexible approach to wetlands regulations. In addition, EPA has committed to working
with ACOE to ensure that the Clean Water Act Section 404 program is more open, consistent,
predictable, and based on sound science.
Coastal America
In efforts to better leverage our collaborative authorities to address coastal communities'
environmental issues (e.g., coastal habitat losses, nonpoint source pollution, endangered species,
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,
created by EO 13340, charged with increasing and improving collaboration and integration
among Federal programs involved in Great Lakes environmental activities. 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 Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration issued a Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. This Strategy is being used
to guide the Great Lakes environmental efforts. Coordination by GLNPO supports the GLWQA
1151
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
and other efforts to improve the Great Lakes: 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 NPS the effort to establish
over 500 miles of water trails three years early; and the USFWS in reaching the Program's fish
passage goal of reopening 1,357 miles of formerly blocked river habitat in 2004. Also in 2004,
through the Federal Agencies Committee, the members sought better coordination of agency
budgets and other programs to try to leverage maximum benefit to the state, private, and Federal
efforts protect and restore the Bay.
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.
1152
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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. EPA coordinates with ATSDR through a memo of understanding on the
development of toxicological reviews and toxicology profiles, respectively. EPA also is
coordinating improvements to the IRIS process through an ad hoc working group of federal
partners (e.g., DOD, DOE, and NASA). 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 actively participates in the CENR and all
work is fully consistent with, and complementary to, other Committee member activities. The
Ecological Research Program (ERP) scientists staff two CENR Subcommittees: the
Subcommittee on Ecological Systems (SES) and the Subcommittee on Water Availability and
Quality (SWAQ). The ERP has initiated discussions within the SES on the subject of ecosystem
services and potential ERP collaborations are being explored with the U.S. Geological Service
(USGS) and with USDA Forest Service. Within SWAQ, the ERP has contributed to an initiative
for a comprehensive census of water availability and quality, including the use of Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program methods and ongoing surveys as data sources. In addition,
the ERP has taken a lead role with USGS in preparing a SWAQ document outlining new
challenges for integrated management of water resources, including strategic needs for
monitoring and modeling methods, and identifying water requirements needed to support the
ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems.
Consistent with the broad scope of the ecological research program, ERP has had complementary
and joint programs with FS, USGS, USDA, NOAA, BLM, USFS, NGOs, and many others
specifically to minimize duplication, maximize scope, and maintain a real time information flow
that have been ongoing since the inception of the program. For example, all of these
organizations work together to produce the National Land Cover Data used by all landscape
ecologists nationally. Each contributes funding, services and research to this uniquely successful
effort.
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.
1153
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 the computational toxicology program, through its ToxCast™ program, a multi-component
effort launched in FY 2007, the Agency is obtaining high-throughput screening data on 320
chemicals of known toxicological profiles. More than 400 endpoints are being generated on
each chemical through multiple research contracts and an Interagency Agreement with the
National Institutes of Health Molecular Libraries Initiative at the National Chemical Genomics
Center.
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 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.
5 For more information, see .
6 For an example, see .
7 For more information, see .
8 For more information, see .
1154
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
The Agency coordinates its research fellowship programs with other Federal agencies and the
nonprofit sector through the National Academies' Fellowships Roundtable, which meets
biannually.9
EPA coordinates its research on endocrine disrupters with other Federal agencies through the
interagency working group on endocrine disrupters under the auspices of the Toxics and Risk
Subcommittee of the CENR. EPA coordinates its biotechnology research through the
interagency biotechnology research working group and the agricultural biotechnology risk
analysis working group of the Biotechnology Subcommittee of NSTC's Committee on Science.
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 Gateway initiative, an "E-Government" project in support 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 and Border Protection on implementing the
secure International Trade Data System across all Federal agencies, and 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.
9 For more information, see .
1155
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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, DOT 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. The Homeland Security and Forensics Support
Programs also coordinate with other Federal law enforcement agencies and with state and local
law enforcement organizations to support counter-terrorism efforts.
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. In FY
2009, EPA will also continue working with other Federal agencies to support the Federal
Facilities Stewardship and Compliance Assistance Center (www.fedcenter.gov).
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 2009, 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 2009 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
1156
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
environmental programs and to guide the VHA in making program improvements at all its
medical centers, and delivered multiple environmental compliance courses for VHA staff and
managers.
EPA works directly with Canada and Mexico bilaterally and in the trilateral Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC). EPA's border activities require close coordination with the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of
Justice, and the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. 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.
The Agency is required to review environmental impact statements and other major actions
impacting the environment and public health proposed by all Federal agencies, and make
recommendations to the proposing Federal agency on how to remedy/mitigate those impacts.
Although EPA is required under § 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to review and comment on
proposed Federal actions, neither the National Environmental Policy Act nor § 309 CAA require
a Federal agency to modify its proposal to accommodate EPA's concerns. EPA does have
authority under these statutes to refer major disagreements with other Federal agencies to the
Council on Environmental Quality. Accordingly, many of the beneficial environmental changes
or mitigation that EPA recommends must be negotiated with the other Federal agency. The
majority of the actions EPA reviews are proposed by the Forest Service, Department of
Transportation (including the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Aviation
Administration), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior (including Bureau of
Land Management, Minerals Management Service and National Parks Service), Department of
Energy (including Federal Regulatory Commission), and Department of Defense.
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.
1157
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
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, DOI (including Bureau of Land
Management, Minerals Management Service and NFS), DOE (including Federal Regulatory
Commission), and DoD.
EPA and DOI 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
1158
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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.
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.
1159
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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.
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: Improve Human Health and the Environment in Indian Country
In 2007, EPA completed two important tribal infrastructure Memoranda of Understanding
(MOU) by five federal agencies. EPA, the Department of the Interior, Department of Health and
Human Services, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development committed to work as partners to improve infrastructure on tribal lands and focus
efforts on providing access to safe drinking water and basic wastewater facilities to tribes.
1160
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
The first MOU promotes coordination between federal tribal infrastructure programs and
financial services while allowing department programs to retain their unique advantages. It is
fully expected that the efficiencies and partnerships resulting from this collaboration will directly
assist tribes with their infrastructure needs. For the first time five federal departments have
joined together and agreed to work across traditional program boundaries on tribal infrastructure
issues. The second MOU signed by the parties was created under this authority and addresses
the issue of access to safe drinking water and wastewater facilities on tribal lands. For more
information, please see the web link: http://www.epa.gov/tribalportal/mous.htm.
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).
1161
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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's 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,
1162
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
while building an external network of partners so that EPA's efforts can be integrated into, and
build upon, the efforts of other Federal agencies.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) primarily provides the Administrator with independent peer
reviews and advice on the scientific and technical aspects of environmental issues to inform the
Agency's environmental decision-making. Often, the Agency program office seeking the SAB's
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).
1163
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
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 and 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 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.
The Agency is participating in government-wide efforts 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.
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 information technology (IT),
information management (IM), and information security aspects of the projects it collaborates
on.
EPA is the managing partner agency of the eRulemaking Program, one of the President's 25
government-wide Electronic Government (E-Gov) initiatives. The eRulemaking Program is
operated within OEI. The Program's mission is to improve public access to, understanding of,
and participation in regulation development and to streamline government's management of and
1164
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
efficiency in promulgating regulations. In January 2003, eRulemaking launched the award-
winning Regulations.gov web site. For the first time ever, citizens could access and comment on
all proposed Federal regulations from a single web site. Tens of millions of public users have
come to this site to find, view, and comment on proposed regulations. In September 2005, the
eRulemaking Program launched the award-winning Federal Docket Management System
(publicly accessible at www.regulations.gov). The Federal Docket Management System is an
electronic document repository enabling agencies to post all rulemaking and non-rulemaking
documents for public access and comment. Now the public also can access Federal Register
documents, supporting technical/legal/economic analyses, and public comments previously only
available by physically visiting a docket center. EPA and its partner agencies enhance the
system each quarter by incorporating new capabilities for public and agency users, including: the
ability to bookmark documents, email notification, Real Simple Syndication Feed (RSS),
eAuthenticated login, electronic records, full-text search, and the ability for major search engines
to locate documents within Regulations.gov. The eRulemaking Program has migrated more than
29 Departments and Independent Agencies, comprised of 161 bureaus, boards, agencies and
administrations, representing more than 90% of the Federal rules promulgated annually.
Collectively, this collaborative multi-agency effort is projected to result in significant savings to
the Federal government through the elimination of duplicative systems (whether existing or
proposed).
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 on Environmental Quality,
Environmental Council of States, 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
1165
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 Presidentially-appointed Federal Inspectors General (IG),
GAO, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The PCIE coordinates and improves the
way IGs conduct audits, investigations and internal operations. The PCIE also promotes joint
projects of government-wide interest, and reports annually to the President on the collective
performance of the OIG community. The OIG Special Operations Division coordinates computer
crime activities with other law enforcement organizations such as the FBI, Secret Service and
Department of Justice. In addition, the OIG participates with various inter-governmental audit
forums and professional associations to exchange information, share best practices, and
obtain/provide training. The OIG further promotes collaboration among EPA's partners and
stakeholders in the application of technology, information, resources and law enforcement efforts
through its outreach activities. The EPA OIG initiates and participates in individual collaborative
audits, evaluations and investigations with OIGs of agencies with an environmental mission such
as the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, and with other Federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies as prescribed by the IG Act, as amended. The OIG also promotes public
awareness of opportunities to report possible fraud, waste and abuse through the OIG Hotline.
1166
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Introduction
Management challenges represent potential vulnerabilities in program operations and
susceptibilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. The Reports Consolidation Act of
2000 requires the Inspector General to identify the most serious management challenges facing
EPA, briefly assess the Agency's progress in addressing them, and report annually. EPA has
established a mechanism for identifying and addressing its key management challenges before
they become serious problems. As part of its management integrity process, EPA senior
managers meet with representatives from EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG), the General
Accountability Office (GAO), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to hear their
views on EPA's key management challenges. EPA managers also use audits, reviews, and
program evaluations conducted internally and by GAO, OMB, and OIG to assess program
effectiveness and identify potential management issues.
EPA remains committed to maintaining effective and efficient internal controls to ensure that
program and financial activities are carried out effectively and according to applicable laws and
sound management policy. The discussion that follows lists management challenges that OIG,
GAO, and OMB have identified and summarizes actions EPA is taking to address these issues.
1. Emission Factors for Sources of Air Pollution
Scope of Challenge. While the Agency has made some progress in improving its emission factors
(e.g., developing a Quality Management Plan), challenges remain. A 2006 OIG evaluation found (1)
conflicting guidance on appropriately using emissions factors, (2) a rating system that did not
quantify the uncertainty associated with emissions factors, (3) inadequate funding of the program,
and (4) the lack of a comprehensive plan to improve data collection and set priorities, and OIG
concluded that emissions factors are being used inappropriately for key environmental decisions.
EPA needs to address the large number of emission factors rated low, ensure sufficient funding to
address data gaps and limitations, limit decisions being made with poor quality emissions factors,
and provide industry and state or local agencies with significant non-regulatory incentives to obtain
the data needed to improve emissions factors. (OIG)
The Agency has made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in OIG's March
2006 evaluation report, EPA Can Improve Emissions Factors Development and Management.
EPA remains on track in implementing its plan to make it easier for others to transmit and
transform their emissions data into emissions factors that account for uncertainty. Building on
previous success, the Agency continues to re-engineer the emissions factor program to develop
emissions factors faster, increase the number of emission factors, and account for uncertainty in
emissions factors.
With respect to developing guidance for using emissions factors, EPA agrees that the Agency
needs to be clearer about the regulatory and environmental risks of using emissions factors,
including the risks associated with their original intended application and for programs that have
adopted their use as an expeditious means of achieving their goals. The Agency has developed a
1167
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
new, streamlined emissions factor development process that is currently undergoing public
review, and we expect to finalize these new procedures later this year.
In response to OIG's finding that the current emissions factor rating system did not quantify the
uncertainty associated with emissions factors, the Agency has completed a statistical study of the
uncertainty associated with published emissions factors that are based on emissions testing data,
such as those contained in AP-42. We presented our approach and study results to internal
reviewers and a panel of expert peer reviewers and addressed their comments and suggestions.
In February 2007, EPA submitted a report describing the technical approach and the results to
Congress and OMB. The report is currently available on the web for public review and
comment. EPA is now beginning to analyze various policy options available for accounting for
uncertainty.
The OIG has recommended the development of a comprehensive plan to improve data collection
and set emission factor priorities. We have developed and submitted a comprehensive strategic
plan meeting those recommendations, which is currently under review by OIG. The plan focuses
on advancing direct, continuous site-specific measurements of the pollutant of concern and
addresses the development and use of emissions factors for situations where site-specific
measurements are infeasible or the risks of adverse program decisions are unacceptable.
Highlights of progress include:
. Launched WebFIRE, an interactive website that combines AP-42 and FIRE data
so that users are no longer required to conduct independent checks while
searching for emission factors.
Conducted an analysis to determine the uncertainty of highly-rated emissions
factors.
Plans for further improvements include:
Enhance WebFIRE to allow users independently to check and verify background
information for emissions factors.
. 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/ Voluntary Climate Change Programs
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting
Scope of Challenge: Climate Leaders and Climate VISION, two voluntary programs aimed at
securing private sector agreements to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions or emissions
intensity, need to be better managed to achieve desired results. While many participants have
completed 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. OMB is concerned about the reliability of the estimates
of GHG reduction attributable to voluntary programs such as Energy Star. (GAO and OMB)
1168
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 completing the program requirements in a timely manner. 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.
In response to OMB's concerns about the reliability of the estimates of GHG, a recent Program
Assessment Rating Tool review found EPA's climate programs to be achieving their goals. The
review also highlighted the ENERGY STAR program as among the more successful in
collecting and presenting performance information and using the data for management decision
making. EPA publishes an annual report on the accomplishments of its voluntary programs for
reducing GHG emissions. This report outlines EPA's robust methods to estimate the benefits of
these programs and explains how the Agency is addressing evaluation issues. The report shows
that ENERGY STAR, in particular, relies on robust, peer-reviewed methods.
Highlights of progress include:
. Developed new peer-reviewed methods for documenting the benefits of
ENERGY STAR, including energy savings and GHG reductions.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Continue to assess the progress of Climate Leader partners and request that they
leave the program if they are not making sufficient progress in a reasonable
period of time.
. Improve the methods that EPA employs to assess the impacts of its climate
protection programs.
Participate in interagency efforts to assess and report on the impacts of the
federal climate protection policy and program.
. Review recent legislation, including the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 and the Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act, to determine the
impacts of their provisions on EPA's methods for estimating the benefits of these
programs.
3. Capacity to Manage Climate Change Activities
Scope of Challenge: Recent developments in climate change science and policy (e.g.,
Massachusetts vs. EPA) will affect EPA 's ability to protect public health and the environment. GAO
believes EPA could benefit from assessing its capacity to manage climate change issues and the
impact of a changing climate on existing Agency programs. EPA should evaluate its scientific and
technical capacity to interpret scientific findings and incorporate them into regulatory decisions;
assess its capacity to implement mandatory programs should Congress pass binding climate
1169
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
legislation; and review the administration of existing programs (air and water pollution) to determine
implications of a changing climate on the Agency's ongoing regulatory efforts. (GAO)
EPA agrees that recent developments in climate change science and policy will impact the
Agency's programs and capacity needs. While we have already begun the type of management
and resource analyses recommended by GAO, we believe it is premature to conduct a full
assessment at this time, given the uncertainty of future Congressional actions. The scope of
possible future legislation under development is unknown (e.g., there is not yet consensus
regarding the sectors to be covered by a possible policy or the type of "binding" measure to be
used). Moreover, it is unclear when such legislation will pass and what kind of lead time EPA
would have in terms of implementing the enacted policies. Under the circumstances, EPA
believes Agency resources could be better used to track developments in Congress and provide
technical support and analyses as requested.
Highlights of progress include:
. Completed short-term realignment of resources to respond to the Massachusetts
v. EPA decision and the President's subsequent Executive Order to regulate
GHG emissions from motor vehicles.
. With extensive senior management involvement, continue to assess the
implications of Supreme Court decisions.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Continue to identify the potential air quality and climate policy implications of
research on air programs.
4. Challenges in Addressing Air Toxic Regulatory Programs Goals
Scope of Challenge: OMB believes EPA needs to continue focusing on addressing the backlog of
residual risk standards and developing air toxics exposure data. (OMB)
The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) required EPA to develop and issue
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards to reduce emissions of air toxics
from certain categories of stationary sources. EPA completed its obligation to develop initial
MACT standards (96 standards for 174 source categories) in 2004. EPA anticipates that when
fully implemented in 2007, the MACT standards will reduce air toxics emissions from stationary
sources by 1.7 million tons per year. The CAA also requires EPA to evaluate air toxic emissions
further and evaluate whether post-MACT emissions pose a risk to public health. These residual
risk reviews and standards are to be developed for each source category within 8 years of
promulgation of the MACT standard. In addition to the residual risk reviews, the CAA requires
EPA to conduct technology reviews for each MACT standard within 8 years of promulgation.
For each technology review EPA is to review and revise the MACT standard, if necessary,
taking into account developments in practices, processes and control technologies.
EPA is combining the risk and technology reviews for each MACT standard. The Agency has
completed risk and technology reviews for 8 MACT standards to date under consent decree
orders. Sierra Club filed a notice of intent to sue on 17 additional MACT standards, and we are
now beyond the 8 years for an additional 16 for a total of 33 MACT standards.
1170
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA has developed a new approach of streamlining the risk and technology reviews for the
MACT standards. Under the new risk and technology review EPA will perform the risk and
technology reviews for groups of MACT standards rather than individually. Post-MACT
emissions contained in the NEI database will be used as the basis to model risk. To conduct risk
analyses, data will be reviewed by EPA and supplemented with additional data for the source
category. EPA will then solicit public comment on the data and any anomalies noted to obtain
the best representation of emissions from the source category. Through the residual risk and
technology review (RTR) process, EPA believes it can complete the residual risk standards in a
timely, scientifically creditable and cost-effective manner.
Highlights of progress include:
Completed 6 residual risk and technology reviews.
Completed the Halogenated Solvents Residual Risk Rule.
. Developed datasets for each source category from NEI and risk data.
. Performed screening assessments for 34 MACT standards (50 source
categories).
Completed the Halogenated Solvents Residual Risk Rule.
. Published advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (currently reviewing
comments and adding corrections to the datasets).
Plans for further improvements include:
. Continue to conduct residual risk reviews and rules under RTR process in an
accelerated manner.
5. Efficiently Managing Water and Wastewater Resources and Infrastructure/Clean
Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
Scope of Challenge: The Agency faces a continuing challenge in reaching thousands of small
utilities and influencing their management behavior, skills, and abilities. EPA needs to be more
innovative on the finance and management fronts to assist states and communities in overcoming
infrastructure issues. The Agency also needs to define its role as part of a long-term national
strategy on sustainable water infrastructure that addresses financial and management issues. OIG
questions whether EPA 's "Four Pillars of Sustained Infrastructure " approach adequately addresses
the infrastructure challenge. OMB and OIG agree that EPA 's regulation policy on state match
options should no longer allow states to use bonds repaid from SRF to meet state match
requirements. (OIG and OMB)
EPA believes it has taken and will continue to take effective steps to define and pursue its role in
ensuring that the nation's water and wastewater infrastructure is sustainable in the future. While
much of the change is needed at the local level, EPA provides leadership, tools, innovation, and
momentum to encourage a shift toward financial and managerial sustainability. The Agency's
role is to provide education and outreach and to serve as a "wholesaler" of information to our
state and national professional association partners. EPA's Four Pillars of Sustainable
Infrastructure (SI) have provided the structure to define the sustainability challenge, raised the
visibility of the issue to a national scale, and offered a suite of approaches to move towards
sustainability. Water infrastructure has been further elevated on the national stage as one of the
Administrator's top four priorities.
1171
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA is leading by example by breaking down barriers to progress in its own programs and
partnerships and working toward policies that foster sustainability, while protecting human
health and the environment. Internally, EPA is speaking with one voice—reaching across offices
to promote the innovation needed to address the sustainability challenge. SI has been a major
topic for the national Water Division Directors' and SES meetings, helping the Agency work
across traditional organizational lines to allow and promote innovation. The Agency is
promoting SI through permits, Special Environmental Projects, and injunctive relief. The
Agency is also coordinating efforts in its Performance Track and Smart Growth programs to
foster aspects of sustainability, energy, and infrastructure related to climate change.
EPA's efforts go well beyond the areas of focus under the Four Pillars. In the area of innovative
finance, the Agency is working to allow the expanded use of Private Activity Bonds to bring
more private capital into the sector and exploring and promoting innovative uses of SRF loans.
In March 2007, in partnership with 14 other organizations, EPA convened a national conference
on Paying for Sustainable Water Infrastructure that brought stakeholders from all levels of
government and the private sector together to explore creative methods of paying for sustainable
water infrastructure. Four conference tracks covered topics related to reducing costs and
increasing investment in drinking water and wastewater systems and programs. The conference
looked beyond the Four Pillars to broader issues and expanding all stakeholders' efforts, since
solutions to the sustainability challenge will require joint and collaborative effort. EPA has since
met with conference co-sponsors to consolidate learning and define critical areas for additional
collaborative action, such as improved outreach to local officials.
On July 2, 2007, EPA responded to OIG's audit recommendations and agreed to assess the
effects on states of its state match bond policy and the potential impact of changes to the current
policy. Our assessment indicates that states show near unanimous support for the current policy
and believe that its cumulative effect on the SRF program has been highly beneficial. Some
states that take advantage of the current policy believe they would be unable to procure state
appropriations for match, and therefore unable to apply for federal funds. EPA will continue to
work with the OIG and states to analyze the effects of this policy.
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.
Signed a ground-breaking agreement with six major water and wastewater
associations jointly to promote effective utility management based on a series of
Attributes of Effectively Managed Utilities, other management tools, and utility
performance measures.
Co-sponsored the Water Quality Trading Conference with USDA that brought
utility companies and the agricultural community together to build 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 and Total Electronic Asset Management Software).
1172
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
. Convened a Watershed Forum with several major utilities to discuss ways to
promote adoption of various watershed tools, such as green infrastructure, into
local infrastructure decisions.
Convened a panel of experts to discuss the importance of full cost pricing of
water and wastewater services by utilities.
. Co-sponsored the Paying for Sustainable Water Infrastructure: Innovations for
the 21st Century Conference which brought together stakeholders from all levels
of government and the private sector to explore creative methods for paying for
sustainable water infrastructure today and into the future.
. Issued the Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers, which explains
how to implement the National Water Quality Trading Policy and is the first
"how to trade" guidance published by the Agency (August 2007).
Plans for further improvements include:
. Develop a Small Communities Team work plan focused on better management
of wastewater for small communities and disadvantaged or 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.
By end of summer of 2008, publish a series of "technical guides" that will
provide technical information for establishing trading programs in such areas as
water quality monitoring and developing scientifically-based trade ratios.
. By winter 2008, complete the Check Up Program for Small Systems software,
an asset management tool designed to help small systems.
. Work with the Green Infrastructure Collaborative workgroup on a strategy to
expand the use of green infrastructure solutions.
Host a National Capacity Development Program workshop to expand outreach
and explore solutions to the challenges faced by small systems.
6. Safe Drinking Water Information Systems (SDWIS)
Scope of Challenge: EPA's database for collecting drinking water information is populated by
data from states on drinking water violations. The database was designed to served as a compliance
tracking system; however, the system depends solely on what states report to EPA as drinking water
violations. OMB is concerned that the database is unable to determine definitively such questions as
the number of systems in compliance, posing a problem for EPA 's Office of Water managers as they
try to run a program based upon limited non-compliance information from states. OMB recommends
that EPA identify better methods to account for violations, such as the stratified sampling of
community water systems approach that the IG suggested in March 2004. (OMB)
EPA has worked to improve the SDWIS database, completing a major software modernization in
2005 on-time and under-budget. Additionally, EPA has assessed data quality and outlined
improvement in our triennial Data Reliability Implementation/Action Plan. In collaboration with
states and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), we are now
implementing a comprehensive data quality improvement plan. EPA and ASDWA have agreed
on a data quality goal of 90 percent for health-based violation data by the 2008-2010 triennial
1173
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
evaluation period: 10 states have already met this goal, and the Agency is tracking progress
through its annual performance goals and measures.
EPA has focused its efforts to improve data quality on two objectives: (1) ensuring that the
system that receives and maintains the data is technologically robust and user friendly; and (2)
ensuring that the compliance decisions made at the state level are appropriate and accurately
entered into the data system. EPA has undertaken considerable effort in the last several years to
modernize the SDWIS/FED database and improve the SDWIS/STATE application. The Agency
has identified completeness of data as an important issue affecting data quality. On-site data
verifications (DVs) have proven critical to identifying data quality gaps and potential root
causes. OGWDW has adhered to a robust data verification audit process, conducting 15 DV
audits in each of FYs 2005, 2006, and 2007, and plans an additional 15 per year in FYs 2008 and
2009.
Highlights of progress include:
. Completed SDWIS modernization.
Implemented a comprehensive data quality improvement plan for the
SDWIS/FED.
. Provided extensive training to primacy agencies on making compliance
determinations.
Developed an electronic tool that allows states to validate their data in advance
of data submission to EPA in order to ensure data completeness and enhance
data quality.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Continue efforts related to training, tool development, and completion of the
next Data Reliability Improvement/Action Plan.
Continue to review the results of DVs, both on-site and eDVs.
In FY 2008, pilot the use of the eDV tool as a means to allow states to validate
their data in advance of submission to SDWIS/FED.
. Continue to work with ASDWA to address documentation of a subset of state
policy decisions on compliance determinations that deviate from regulatory
requirements.
7. Water Quality Monitoring and Data
Scope of Challenge: While EPA has made progress in monitoring water quality, OMB remains
concerned about EPA 's ability to provide a statistically valid national assessment of water quality for
decision-making at the national, state, and regional levels. OMB believes EPA 's allowance of states
to use Section 106 funds to assess non-statistically valid water quality monitoring has exacerbated
the water quality data problem by extending the time it will take EPA and states to have complete
probabilistic programs in place. EPA needs to limit the use of the additional Section 106 funds to
probabilistic monitoring activities. (OMB)
EPA believes the use of 106 funds for non-probabilistic monitoring efforts provides regions and
states with flexibility they need in assessing water quality. On March 29, 2006, EPA published
"Guidelines for the Award of Monitoring Initiative Funds under Section 106 Grant to States,
1174
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Interstate Agencies, and Tribes" in the Federal Register. These guidelines outline eligibility
requirements and allocation of Monitoring Initiative funds (e.g., $8.5M for state/tribal
participation in national surveys, less minor rescission, and $10.0M for enhancements to state
monitoring programs, less minor rescission). In May 2007, the Deputy Administrator negotiated
an agreement allowing EPA to continue allocating the funds using this approach and
incorporating a performance-based standard that will provide EPA and states with the incentive
to undertake additional statistical survey programs.
EPA's regional monitoring and grants programs have been working with states to distribute
Monitoring Initiative funds based on these guidelines. We are making steady progress in
working with states to adopt probability surveys and are on track for meeting the performance
measure for 50 states implementing state surveys by 2011.
Highlights of progress include:
. Issued the Wadeable Streams Assessment, which lays out the baseline
conditions of streams in the lower 48 states.
Completed the monitoring design for a national lakes survey (field sampling is
underway).
Plans for further improvements include:
. Complete the monitoring design for the national rivers survey.
. Issue the third National Coastal Condition Report, which will further our
understanding of the trends in costal water conditions.
8. Strategies for Managing Watersheds
Scope of Challenge: EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program has over 100 measures to assess progress
in meeting restoration commitments, but the Agency does not have an approach to translate the
measures or a strategy to target limited resources to activities outlined in Chesapeake 2000. While
EPA is currently developing a Web-based system to unify its planning documents, these activities do
not fully address GAO 's recommendations. Additionally, EPA has made progress in guiding the
development of an overall strategy for restoring 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 created a Federal Interagency Task Force to bring the many governmental
partners together to protect and 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 have been identified in the Federal
Near-Term Action Plan and are being implemented. GLNPO is tracking performance in
1175
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
improving the Great Lakes and progress toward commitments in the Federal Near-Term Action
Plan.
To address GAO concerns regarding the Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA has taken steps to
enhance assessment and reporting on the health and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Program Office is developing a strategic implementation plan (SIP) that
identifies activities for achieving health and restoration goals for the Chesapeake Bay. This plan,
which will be completed in phases, includes five overarching goals and ten key commitments.
The first phase focuses on federal actions and is expected to be completed by the end of CY
2007. To date, federal partners (regional and national) have agreed to the goals in the SIP,
determined the leads for each of the goals, and agreed to develop a strategic plan that includes
annual goals and targets (based on federal funding). The next phase of the SIP will focus on
integrating state and federal activities.
Highlights of progress include:
Issued an assessment report on the Chesapeake Bay which describes the current
health of the Bay and progress made in implementing management actions.
. Redesigned how the Agency presents indicator information on its Bay Trends
and Indicators website (refer to http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators.htm).
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.
. Completed 13 of 48 near term actions, with almost all of the rest on track toward
completion. Completed projects include a standardized sanitary survey tool for
beach managers to identify pollution sources at beaches and $525,000 in grants
piloting the tool to assess 60 beaches in the Great Lakes. In addition, Asian
Silver Carp, Largescale Silver Carp, and Black Carp were listed as injurious
under the Lacey Act; and the operation of the electric carp barrier in Illinois was
continued, to prevent the spread of these species into the Great Lakes.
Coordinated with NOAA, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Forest Service,
NRCS, and EPA to collectively provide almost $2 million in federal funding,
and even more in leveraged non-federal funds, to support 36 projects to make
on-the-ground gains in protecting and restoring watersheds in the Great Lakes.
. Remediated over 800,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment at five sites
under the Great Lakes Legacy Act. Through leveraging, we have utilized
federal, state, and private dollars to remove 1.5 million pounds of contaminated
sediments from the environment, thereby reducing risk to aquatic life and human
health, including over 25,000 pounds of PCBs, over one million pounds of
chromium, about 400 pounds of mercury, and 171 pounds of lead.
Coordinated and leveraged resources with relevant agencies, including the Corps
of Engineers, pursuant to the Great Lakes Habitat/Wetlands Initiative to restore,
protect or improve approximately 65,000 acres of wetlands towards a 100,000
acre near-term goal. Great Lakes States have committed to meet a similar
100,000 acre wetlands goal.
Established the Federal Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Response
Subcommittee to coordinate Federal efforts to respond to aquatic invasive
species entering the Great Lakes. The Subcommittee and Collaboration partners
1176
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
have developed a Communication Protocol that will assist in coordinating
efforts and communication to stem new invaders to the Lakes and to ensure
resources and expertise can be brought to bear to the problems of new invaders.
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.
. Conduct an independent scientific review of the 2006 assessment report.
9. Management of Leaking Underground Storage Tank(LUST)
Scope of Challenge: EPA relies on states to ensure that tank owners and operators are in
compliance with federal financial responsibility regulations under the underground storage tank
program, but does not provide specific guidance to states as to whether or how frequently they should
verify coverage. GAO believes EPA lacks assurance that states are adequately overseeing and
enforcing financial responsibility provisions and that the Agency's method of monitoring whether
state assurance funds provide adequate financial responsibility coverage is limited. In addition,
GAO finds that EPA 's distribution of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund money to states
depends on data that may be inaccurate, due to state reporting requirements. (GAO)
In response to GAO's report, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: EPA Should Take Steps to
Better Ensure the Effective Use of Public Funding for Cleanups, EPA agrees that regular
verification of financial responsibility coverage is important to ensure adequate funding for
cleaning up future releases. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) requires EPA or states, as
appropriate, to conduct on-site inspections of USTs every 3 years to determine compliance with
requirements imposed by Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. On April 24, 2007, EPA
issued final grant guidelines to implement those requirements. These guidelines require that the
inspections assess compliance with the financial responsibility requirements.10
Additionally, EPA agrees that increased oversight of state assurance fund (state fund) solvency is
necessary and important. As the report indicates, EPA recently developed a monitoring tool to
assess the financial condition of state funds. EPA is working to improve implementation and
utility of that tool. Also, in response to EPAct, EPA is working on guidance to revise and
improve its process for monitoring the financial soundness of state funds and work with less
solvent funds to improve solvency. EPA expects to complete this guidance in 2008.
Each year EPA distributes LUST Trust Fund money, under an allocation formula that reflects
state performance and need, using information reported by states in their end-of-year activity
reports. The information contained in these reports, including the number of releases and the
population of active tanks, indicates program need and program performance. Nonetheless, EPA
agrees with GAO that it is important to ensure the accuracy of information used to support the
LUST allocation formula. EPA will continue to work with regions and states to implement
10 Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the Inspection Provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPA
510-R-07-004, April 2007, http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/final_i.htm
1177
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
quality control measures and, in particular, work toward ensuring that reported data is consistent
with existing EPA definitions and is limited to federally-regulated USTs. In addition, as EPA
begins working on the EPAct requirements pertaining to the LUST Trust Fund allocation, it will
work with regions and states to consider other changes to improve the distribution of future
LUST money, including changes that more specifically reflect the need at abandoned LUST
sites.
Highlights of progress include:
Issued final Grant Guidelines on Inspection Requirements, Grant Guidelines to
States for Implementing the Inspection Provisions of the Energy Policy Act of
2005. http://www.epa.gov/OUST/fedlaws/fmal i.htm
Continued to emphasize regions' use of the "Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Evaluation Checklist" prior to submitting their states' mid-year and annual
performance activities. This checklist is a tool to ensure the quality of state and
regional data.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Increase efforts to assess the solvency of state funds by raising the level of
attention to this issue at national level and providing guidance to regions on
increasing their oversight of state funds and reporting annually on their findings.
10. Chemical Regulation
Scope of Challenge: Recent GAO reviews 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. Furthermore, EPA 's reviews of new chemicals provide only limited assurance
that health and environmental risks are identified before the chemicals enter commerce. In addition,
EPA has limited ability to publicly share the information it receives from chemical companies under
TSCA. GAO has recommended that Congress consider providing EPA additional authorities under
TSCA to improve its ability to assess chemical risks. GAO recommends that 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)
EPA will continue work initiated in FY 2007 to evaluate the screening level chemical hazard
data obtained through the U.S. High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program and
companion Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Screening
Information Data Set (SIDS) Program. These efforts, combined with the expanded exposure
information reported under the 2006 TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule, will lead to
the development of risk-based prioritization documents for HPV chemicals. Similar work was
initiated in FY 2008, and will continue in 2009, to develop prioritization documents on Moderate
Production Volume (MPV) chemicals (25,000 - 1 million pounds/year). This work is included
in the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico,
1178
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
under which the U.S. committed to assess and initiate action on over 9,000 HPV and MPV
chemicals by 2012. The risk- and hazard-based prioritization documents identify needed actions
on chemicals presenting potential risks. Actions initiated by EPA could involve voluntary
information collection, chemical testing, or risk reduction efforts and regulatory actions such as
Significant New Use Rules (SNURs), Section 4 Test Rules, or other rules to prevent
unreasonable risks.
In addition, EPA continues to follow the Council on Regulatory Environmental Monitoring
guidance for evaluating environmental models. EPA is also working internally to validate the use
of Structure Activity Relationships assessment tools, giving the Agency confidence in the
models and tools it uses to investigate potential risks from new chemicals.
Highlights of progress include:
. Completed screening-level hazard characterization reports for 301 HPV
chemicals, exceeding the FY 2007 target of 259. Cumulative progress is 931.
Completed 33 Proposed Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) which
emergency planners and first responders use to prepare for and deal with
chemical emergencies by determining safe exposure levels. (This brings the
cumulative total since 2006 to 56.)
Developed and released a Global Data Portal, which allows searching, viewing,
and exchanging of test data between the United States, European Union, and
other governments (2008). (See http://cs3-hq.oecd.org/scripts/hpv/ for more
information.)
. Hosted the "National HPV Chemical Data Users Conference" in December 2006
and two regional conferences in 2007, and used feedback to improve public
accessibility to the HPV data.
. Collected expanded screening level exposure-related data on an estimated 7 to 8
thousand chemicals, including processing and use exposure-related data on
approximately 40% of those chemicals, under IUR.
. Initiated the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) to better
characterize existing chemical risks from nanoscale materials.
Plans for further improvements include:
• Increase the production of HPV risk-based decisions to bring the cumulative
total to from 150 to 490 chemicals in FY 2009.
• Increase the number of MPV hazard-based decisions from 55 anticipated in FY
2008 to 650 planned for FY 2009.
• Industry will contribute as well to the 3,000 HPV chemical component of the
SPP commitments through the industry-led Extended High Production Volume
Challenge Program (EHPV), which focuses on approximately 500 chemicals
that achieved HPV status after the HPV Challenge Program had commenced.
• Implement its NMSP, which will gather existing data on manufactured
nanoscale materials and encourage the development of additional test data.
• Complete the development of a final HPV Challenge report and make it
publicly available.
1179
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
• Evaluate options to change the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation
Program (VCCEP) based on experience gained during the pilot phase of the
program. Options include modifying certain features of the program to enable
VCCEP to operate more rapidly and efficiently, and applying the VCCEP
approach to further evaluate HPV Challenge chemicals for which EPA has
special concerns after completing screening-level hazard, exposure and risk
characterizations.
11. Enforcement and Compliance Activities
Scope of Challenge: With budget constraints and limited resources and the Nation's high
expectations for environmental protection, EPA must develop more flexible and cost-effective
approaches for managing environmental enforcement and compliance programs. The Agency needs
to intensify efforts to move from a performance management system focused on inspections 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, EPA needs to improve its
enforcement data to determine the universe of regulated entities and their characteristics and address
apparent inconsistencies in program delivery among EPA 's regional offices. (GAO)
EPA has made considerable progress in recent years in developing and implementing a
performance and results-based national enforcement and compliance program. In FY 2005, the
Agency began to focus its national enforcement and compliance program on "national
enforcement priority" areas of noncompliance that have the most significant effects on public
health and the environment. These priorities were determined in consultation with the regions
and states and were set for an initial 3-year cycle of 2005-2007. For each priority area, the
Agency developed a specific strategy for targeting and achieving results. The Agency also
developed specific measures of success, including the key outcome measure of "pounds of
pollution reduced or treated" and used a limited number of key management measures,
developed in concert with regional measures, to monitor its progress and ensure the
accomplishment of its annual goals.
In FY07, the Agency again consulted with regions and states to determine whether the current set
of priorities should remain in place for the next 3-year cycle, and whether additional
environmental risk and noncompliance problems should be considered. The consensus indicated
that the current priorities remain the highest priority problems of national significance. The
Agency evaluated progress toward the goals set for each of the national priorities using data
derived from key measures. Based on that analysis, strategies were adjusted where needed to
ensure efforts are focused appropriately, and goals and measures were refined to better articulate
and measure the effectiveness of the Agency's national enforcement program.
EPA has implemented several measures and management practices to ensure equitable and
consistent enforcement across the nation. We have established national enforcement priorities;
created national Strategy Implementation Teams, with regional and headquarters members, to
develop the implementation plans for each national priority area; issued national policies and
guidance; and implemented the State Review Framework to enhance the Agency's ability to
evaluate and oversee state programs.
1180
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA continues work to ensure that its resources are directed to the most significant risks to
public health and the environment. Identifying national enforcement priorities is critical to this
effort, and EPA has used a collaborative process that examines noncompliance in a particular
candidate area, the environmental gains from reducing or eliminating the problem, and the
appropriateness of an active Federal role in achieving compliance. For the past 5 years, the
Agency has reserved funds for addressing resource gaps in implementing these national
priorities. Teams responsible for overseeing the implementation of each of the priorities develop
competitive proposals to fund activities, tools, and technology to support implementation.
Preference in funding is given to proposals that leverage existing resources, improve efficiency,
address unmet needs, and have the greatest potential to produce results.
Highlights of progress include:
. Reduced, treated, or eliminated 890 million pounds of pollutants and 1.5 million
cubic yards of contaminated soil and water in FY 2007.
. Issued the Guide for Addressing Environmental Problems: Using an Integrated
Strategic Approach, which provides guidance on selecting the appropriate tools
to address noncompliance and environmental problems in a specific context in
order to achieve the best outcome.
Conducted a detailed data-driven review of the performance of each region's
compliance and enforcement program including fact-based discussion with
regions regarding their results.
. Implemented the SRF to ensure that regional offices conduct consistent
oversight of states, and that states consistently implement environmental
enforcement programs. The SRF provides critical information on a state's or
region's core environmental and compliance assurance performance based on
existing data available in EPA's national database. With funding from OPEI,
began an in-depth program evaluation of the SRF to enable adjustments aimed at
maximizing its effectiveness. The review process has included state and
regional participation to ensure all stakeholders' experiences and perspectives
are considered.
. Developed the Key Management Measures Report for senior managers, which
highlights key data on significant noncompliance, raising the visibility and
scrutiny of such information.
. In December 2007, held a workshop in which experts discussed white papers on
the state of the science of measuring compliance assistance outcomes as well as
general and specific deterrent impacts of monitoring and enforcement.
Plans for further improvements include:
Work toward developing an environmental problem-based strategic architecture
centered on enforcement, monitoring, and assistance. This will replace the
current tool-based objectives.
. Building on the findings and recommendations in the white papers discussed
above, the Agency will explore the feasibility of a pilot project aimed at
developing a methodology for measuring general deterrence within specific
sectors.
1181
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
12. Workforce Planning/Human Capital Management
Scope of Challenge: OIG and GAO believe that EPA continues to face challenges in managing
human capital and workforce planning, including its ability to attract, develop, and retain a skilled,
diverse, and results-oriented workforce. Although EPA has completed a comprehensive Strategic
Workforce Plan for maintaining the right people, at the right location, and at the right time, an OIG
review of the Agency's workforce planning effort reveals challenges which may affect the Agency's
ability to get to "green " status on the PMA scorecard. GAO finds that despite EPA 's progress in
improving the management of its human capital, the Agency has not effectively implemented its
human capital strategic plan and needs to comprehensively assess its workforce and continue
monitoring its progress to ensure a well-trained and motivated workforce with the right mix of skills
and experience. GAO further notes that if EPA is to improve its resource planning process, the
Agency needs to obtain reliable data on key workload indicators and design budget and cost
accounting systems that can isolate resources needed and allocated to key activities. (OIG and GAO)
In FY 2001, EPA acknowledged human capital (HC) as an Agency-level weakness. Over the
years, the Agency has made significant progress in strengthening its HC program. This included
developing a robust HC accountability program, improving the HC audit program, expanding the
Agency's leadership development programs to enhance skills and ensure continuity of
leadership, and establishment of a workforce planning system. As of FY 2007, the Agency had
completed all of its improvements except for a few final improvements to address the workforce
planning component of the human capital weakness identified in FY 2001. To address the
workforce planning concerns identified by OIG and GAO, EPA developed a workforce
planning/competency management system that gauges skill gaps and guides the design of
strategies for closing the gaps. EPA has worked 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 President's Management Agenda (PMA) as it relates to the Strategic Management
of Human Capital. The Agency expects to complete all final corrective actions related to this
weakness in FY 2008.
Highlights of progress include:
In FY 2007, retained a "green" progress score for Human Capital under the
PMA in every quarter, and remained on target to attain a "green" status score in
December 2008.
Completed implementation of all cycles of the workforce planning process for
EPA's priority Mission Critical Occupations, resulting in no major competency
or resource gaps.
Completed implementation of a complete, self-directed Human Capital
Accountability system for EPA.
. Continued preparation for full implementation of the electronic Official
Personnel Folders (e-OPF).
. Completed initial cost-benefit analysis on HR LoB initiative options for EPA
HR IT systems and completed initial analysis of EPA HR consolidation options
for EPA HR operations.
. Launched the "Successful Leaders Program" as the new EPA-wide mandatory
new supervisors training program.
. Achieved EPA's objective for SES time-to-hire of less than 73 days between
advertisement and offer.
1182
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Implemented the second successful round of the EPA Agency-wide SES
mobility program.
. Achieved full certification from OPM for EPA's SES pay and performance
system.
Completed a full succession planning analysis for EPA SES critical positions,
exceeding targets for bench-strength.
. Completed a new EPA Recruiting Plan.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Complete all final corrective actions for workforce planning related to this
weakness in FY 2008.
13. Grants Management
Scope of Challenge: GAO believes that while EPA has issued a 5-year grants management plan
and made progress in achieving reforms, weaknesses in implementation and accountability continue
to hamper effective grants management. In particular, GAO cites problems remaining in
documenting ongoing monitoring of grantee performance and in closing out grants. EPA 's lack of
monitoring documentation hinders the Agency's ability to collect important data and ensure that
grant recipients have met all financial requirements. (OIG and GAO)
In FY 2000, EPA acknowledged assistance agreements as an Agency-level weakness. Over the
years, the Agency has taken substantial actions to improve its management of assistance
agreements through updated policies, increased training, and improved accountability. While
grants management will continue to require sustained management attention, the Agency has in
place an infrastructure responsive to the concerns identified by OIG and GAO. EPA has
completed and validated the effectiveness of all corrective actions associated with this weakness.
The Agency closed this weakness in September 2007.
Highlights of progress include:
. Continued to enhance grant management skills of EPA employees through
mandatory training. As a result, virtually all EPA grants are now managed by
certified project officers.
. To strengthen oversight and respond to GAO and internal EPA
recommendations, EPA developed a revised Post-Award Monitoring Order that
becomes effective January 2008.
. Implemented the Agency's Green Plan for the improvement of financial data,
specifically the interface between the Integrated Grants Management System
and the Integrated Financial Management System.
Conducted a two-phase study to review the identified output and outcomes of
grant work plans and the progress reports that follow these work plans.
. Continued to implement the Agency's revised competition policy, having
competed almost 92 percent of new grants, exceeding performance targets in the
Grants Management Plan.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Sustain management attention to grants management.
1183
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Maintain the infrastructure the Agency has established in response to issues
identified by GAO and OIG.
14. Financial Management Practices
Scope of Challenge: GAO annual reviews of EPA's budget justification and related financial
management practices have identified several management challenges: the need for enhancing
oversight of processes for conducting and tracking closeouts of expired contracts, grants, and
interagency agreements and limitations in the Agency's ability to account for its spending on
voluntary programs or certain fixed costs, including security and utilities. GAO believes EPA also
needs to better account for and report on deobligations and recertifications of expired funds. (GAO)
EPA currently uses several financial systems to account for Agency spending. The Integrated
Financial Management System (IFMS) is based on 1980s technology and has required several
work-around databases and modules to track expenditures effectively. The Budget Automation
System (BAS) system, for example, tracks program budgets in more detail than IFMS permits.
The Agency's Business Intelligence Tool (ORBIT) was recently upgraded, and some program
offices have been unable to utilize fully the system's capabilities. EPA is developing a
replacement system for IFMS that will enable better practices in financial management. While a
temporary interim fix would be to create additional sub-object class codes for fixed costs, the
Agency already tracks utility costs closely and is taking steps to further improve the oversight of
utility and security charges.
In response to GAO's concerns regarding closeout of expired contracts, EPA's contracting
officers review all expired contracts on a monthly basis and report to Office Directors and
Deputy Directors on the status of closeout actions. Whenever possible, the Agency performs
desk reviews to expedite contract closeouts. However, when we encounter issues with a
contractor's direct or indirect cost rates or potential claims about the completion of work or
deliverables under a contract, we cannot close the contract and deobligate all unliquidated
obligations immediately after it expires. In these cases, not only EPA but either party may
recover funds.
Highlights of progress include:
. Installed advanced web-based metering systems at the Research Triangle Park
field office, which covers 40 percent of EPA's total energy usage.
Completed advance metering site visits at 75 percent of its other field offices.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Continue to review energy usage quarterly for each reporting laboratory.
Complete remaining 25 percent of advance metering site visits.
. Begin implementing the EPAct 2005 requirements to install "advance metering
at all appropriate facilities by 2012.
15. Managing for Results
Scope of Challenge: OIG states that while many of EPA's programs received high PART scores in
areas such as program purpose and program management, the Agency continues to face challenges
1184
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
in demonstrating program results due to the lack of independent evaluations of sufficient scope and
quality; the failure to collect timely and credible performance information; the lack of ambitious
targets and timeframes for long-term measures; and the failure to tie budget requests to
accomplishing performance goals. OIG believes EPA needs to focus on the logic of program design
to ensure that programs and processes have clear and measurable results that allow for transparency
and accountability for program performance. Further, OIG believes EPA needs to develop a
systematic process for conducting its program evaluations, including leveraging resources for
program evaluation competitions and establishing a community of knowledgeable and experienced
evaluators from which to draw. Additionally, EPA must continue its efforts to improve strategic
planning and tracking of accomplishments and their associated costs. (OIG)
Over the past years, national programs, regional offices, and the Agency's external stakeholders
have worked collaboratively to strengthen results-based management at EPA. In FY 2006, the
Agency issued its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, which charts an ambitious course for environmental
protection over the next 5 years and focuses on achieving measurable results that will help
advance the protection of human health and the environment. The revised Strategic Plan reflects
more outcome-oriented goals and objectives and benefits from information on environmental
indicators and from futures analysis. The Agency continues to improve the quality of its
performance measures as well as its ability to track the cost of achieving environmental results
by reducing reporting burden, strengthening data quality, and reinforcing accountability.
OMB acknowledges EPA's significant accomplishments in the area of Financial Performance
and Budget and Performance Integration under the PMA. For the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarters of FY
2007, EPA received status and progress scores of "green" for its continued use of financial and
performance information in day-to-day program management and decision making. EPA also
continued efforts to streamline efficiency measures.
Highlights of progress include:
. 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 that contribute
to OMB's PART reviews.
. Launched a new intranet website (http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/acs) to provide
Agency staff with information on ACS development and the annual performance
commitment process.
. Developed new detailed performance reports through the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer's Reporting and Business Intelligence Tool (ORBIT).
. Retired the Management and Accounting Reporting Systems (MARS), saving $1
million annually and improving Agency access to key budget and financial
management reports.
Achieved OMB approval of efficiency measures for all 51 of EPA's completed
PART programs.
. Issued the 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, which reflects a sharper focus on priorities
established by the Administrator (i.e., environmental justice, innovation and
collaboration, environmental stewardship, and the role of state and tribal
partners).
. Received a "green" status score for Budget and Performance Integration under the
PMA for the 2nd and 3rd Quarters of FY 2007.
1185
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
. Maintained and improved the ACS as a management tool for senior managers to
support more effective program management and use of results in Agency
decision making.
Plans for further improvements:
. Identify and implement initiatives that support the Agency's vision for greater
central governance of performance measures and stronger program and
organizational accountability.
Improve senior managers' access to the Agency's performance information by
modifying data systems (BAS, PERS, ACS) to include a "measures central"
screen. The screen will improve the usability of the data system and serve as a
filter for all Agency performance measures (GPRA, QMR, and senior
management measures).
. Identify and endorse a limited set of "top tier" measures and integrate them in the
FY 2008 National Program Managers Guidance, FY 2008 annual commitment
process, and FY 2009 budget.
Continue to promote and maintain ORBIT as a primary reporting tool for Agency
budget, financial, and performance data.
. Expand the Agency's use of the state grant template to report on FY 2007 results,
increasing transparency and ensuring that state grants are accountable for
achieving EPA's mission.
16. Data Gaps/Environmental Information
Scope of Challenge: While noting EPA's progress in addressing critical data gaps in its
environmental information, both OIG and GAO believe the Agency still lacks the data it needs to
manage for environmental results. OIG notes that data needed to measure program success, to
improve risk assessments, and to understand the effectiveness of specific controls are not always
available and recommends that EPA continue efforts to set priorities for filling data gaps and that it
develop new and strengthen existing outreach programs to leverage data collection efforts with
states, tribes, territories, and industries. GAO cites challenges the Agency faces in filling critical
data gaps to incorporate better scientific understanding into assessments of environmental trends and
conditions and to develop better performance measures for managing programs and measuring
program effectiveness. (OIG and GAO)
As part of its strategic planning, EPA continues to implement and refine processes to identify
data gaps and to set priorities for addressing them. For example, the Agency is coordinating the
draft Report of the Environment (ROE) with its 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 to help 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 preliminary
strategies 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.
1186
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Highlights of progress include:
. Developed a pilot (endorsed by Indicators Steering Committee) that assesses
how the ROE and strategic planning efforts can best inform and support one
another.
Completed the Water pilot, as part of the ROE/Strategic Plan pilots.
. Briefed the Indicators Steering Committee on the preliminary accomplishments
of the ROE/Strategic Plan Pilot.
. Implemented a comprehensive work plan to measure the performance of the
Exchange Network.
Plans for further improvements include:
Continue to further refine the process to identify and prioritize data gaps
identified in the ROE as part of the Agency's Strategic Plan and budgeting
planning processes.
17. Data Standards and Data Quality
Scope of Challenge: OIG acknowledges that EPA has a substantive effort in place to develop data
standards and guide their implementation but notes that standards are not yet incorporated into all
information collections. OIG also notes the need for EPA and its partners to continue to focus on
ensuring that data are of sufficient quality for decision-making (e.g., assess the integrity of
laboratories' drinking water data and incorporate techniques into the laboratory oversight process to
identify improper practices and fraud into the laboratory oversight process). OIG recommends EPA
set protocols for data system training (e.g., data entry) to ensure that decision makers will have
immediate access to reliable water quality data during an emergency. (OIG)
EPA declared "Implementation of Data Standards" an Agency-level weakness under FMFIA in
FY 2005, and has since made progress in addressing challenges related to data standards and data
quality. The Agency currently has in place a corrective action strategy that addresses issues
identified by OIG. In response to OIG concerns regarding the integrity of laboratories, EPA
continues to require laboratories to submit Quality Assurance Reports and Work Plans annually.
In accordance with a February 2004 policy directive developed by the Agency's Science Policy
Council, laboratories are to seek accreditation from independent accrediting organizations or
conduct independent external assessments of their laboratory practices to demonstrate
competency. As of April 2007, nine laboratories have achieved accreditation. While EPA has
completed the milestones associated with correcting its "Implementation of Data Standards"
weakness, we will continue to monitor and verify performance, promote awareness, and develop
training modules to implement data standards.
As part of its strategic planning, EPA continues to implement and refine processes to identify
data gaps and to set priorities for addressing them. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO) directed the Office of Research and Development (ORD) to work with the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI) and the Report on the Environment (ROE) Steering
Committee to identify Agency priorities for environmental indicators, monitoring, and related
information. This effort includes consideration of the Preliminary Strategies developed as part of
the 2006-2011 strategic planning process and the ongoing ROE Pilots. In response to the CFO's
direction, the ROE Steering Committee is working to identify the most strategic monitoring/data-
1187
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
development or informational priorities that should be taken into account in future Agency
budget strategies as well as the next round of strategic planning.
Highlights of progress include:
Initiated a ranking process to identify the priorities for environmental indicators,
monitoring and related information. Results from the ranking process will be
reviewed by the ROE Steering Committee, the Science Policy Council Steering
Committee, ad the Regional Planners. A report will be completed in early 2008
and will be used to inform the FY 2010 planning and budgeting and the 2009-
2014 strategic planning process.
. Developed a communications plan promoting implementation of upcoming
standards and awareness of associated documentation, including implementation
strategy, procedures, and best practices.
. Issued a semi-annual Data Standards "Report Card" designed to track program
implementation of data standards.
Reviewed data standards implementation for all systems managed under one
prime contractor.
Plans for further improvements include:
Continue to refine the process to identify and rank data gaps identified in the
ROE as part of the Agency's Strategic Plan and budget and planning processes.
. Design and launch a new EPA data standards website that will provide data
standards and implementation information for EPA program offices and system
developers.
Continue to monitor implementation of data standards within the Registry of
EPA Application and Databases and publish the semi-annual Data Standards
Report Card.
18. Information Technology Systems Development and Implementation
Scope of Challenge: While EPA has made some improvements in IT system development and
implementation, the Agency needs more management controls and oversight to ensure that IT
projects meet the performance standards established by OMB. OIG believes EPA needs to: (1)
ensure high-risk IT projects do not exceed prescribed cost and schedule variances; (2) ensure that
offices complete system life cycle documentation in a timely manner; and (3) finalize its draft
November 2006 Earned Value Management Procedures, which are used to assist project managers in
collecting and reporting on performance of major IT investments. (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 response to OIG's audit findings, EPA developed an action plan to enhance management
control and oversight. The action plan calls for formally delegating the responsibility for
independent oversight review, adding a question in the Capital Planning and Investment Control
(CPIC) process focusing on System Life Cycle documentation and approvals, and further
1188
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
emphasizing the importance of reviewing solutions architecture documents. It also calls for
revising the System Life Cycle Management Procedures and continued outreach and education
for senior management and Senior Information Officials. 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.
Highlights of progress include:
Received certification from program and regional Senior Information Officials
that all IT acquisitions of $2 million or more had undergone an E-Gov, Line of
Business, and SmartBuy review.
Ensured that program offices completed Earned Value Management (EVM)
analysis and reporting for on-going development projects.
. Developed Enterprise Architecture Governance Procedures that require review,
approval, and certification that solutions architectures are aligned with both
federal and EPA enterprise architectures.
. Conducted outreach briefings for Agency Senior Information Officials,
discussing CPIC and project management.
. Issued the draft Enterprise Architecture Program 2007 Architecture
Development Standard and Guidance.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Finalize the draft Earned Value Management Procedures by the end of
FY 2008. The draft is currently being reviewed by program managers.
Continue to conduct outreach briefings with senior management.
. Conduct annual EVM program reviews with project managers.
. Continue to work with the appropriate office to ensure that EVM systems are
included in contracts and to establish guidelines for project/program compliance
and system certification.
19. Privacy Programs
Scope of Challenge: The protection of personally identifiable information (PII) has become the
subject of recent oversight by OMB. Like many agencies, EPA is challenged in focusing on its
privacy responsibilities and integrating privacy into E-Gov and other mandated privacy activities.
EPA needs to update overarching policies outlining administration and management of the privacy
program; complete plans to ensure compliance with privacy program policies and procedures and
establish oversight; and continue to establish practices to help privacy program managers measure
the success of the program. EPA program and regional offices must work together to ensure program
success. EPA needs to complete and implement privacy program guidance and other planned
activities. (OIG)
EPA acknowledges that it faces challenges in establishing privacy programs, including revising
and developing policies, establishing oversight and accountability, ensuring compliance, and
measuring success. However, over the past year, EPA has made significant progress in
integrating its privacy and security reporting responsibilities into its business processes.
1189
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
In June 2006, the Agency established a Personal Identifiable Information (PII) Workgroup under
the Quality Information Council to identify and implement short- and long-term actions to
protect PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. The workgroup developed an action plan to
ensure that key privacy initiatives are met and that the critical tenets of the privacy program are
accomplished. The action plan, which includes milestones and expected outcomes, will help the
Agency better understand its risks for PII breaches by knowing where its privacy collections are
located, managed, and accessed and whether the Agency is storing and collecting unnecessary
PII. EPA has already completed several critical activities within the action plan and will
continue to monitor progress in this area.
Highlights of progress include:
. Reviewed the Agency's technical controls to ensure consistency with the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and OMB requirements.
. Prepared System of Records for new system (on-going).
. Established and implemented guidance for preparing Privacy Impact
Assessments on all new Agency systems (on-going).
Reviewed Agency privacy policies to ensure they address the controls identified
by NIST.
. Reviewed all Agency Privacy Act Systems of Records to determine which
systems are remotely accessed, are downloaded, and/or collect sensitive PII, and
whether stringent controls are required.
. Reviewed and submitted draft language for the Agency's new telework policy to
ensure that employees are aware of their responsibilities to protect PII when
working offsite.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Develop a privacy intranet website that will make privacy documents available
to employees.
. Continue to monitor progress to ensure the Agency is in compliance with NIST
and OMB standards and/or requirements.
20. Agency Efforts in Support of Homeland Security
Scope of Challenge: An OIG evaluation of the Agency's Emergency Response Business Plan
identified planning assumptions and aspects of the planning process that may challenge EPA 's ability
to rely on the Plan as a valid assessment of its readiness. OIG believes the plan does not: (1)
provide the rationale for the incidents of national significance on which it is based; (2) document the
methodology used to determine the required emergency response resources; (3) address the
involvement of other federal or state and local emergency response agency resources; (4) incorporate
lessons learned; and (5) address the criteria or responsible agencies for deciding when residents may
return to an area impacted by an incident. GAO also raises concerns regarding EPA's
communications about potential health risks residents may face and protective gear they should have
when returning to their homes after an emergency. (OIG and GAO)
EPA developed an Emergency Response Business (ER) Plan to increase the Agency's
preparedness in responding to environmental and homeland security related disasters. The plan
provides a framework for the Agency to address simultaneous incidents of national significance
1190
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
while maintaining 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.
EPA is currently working on an agency wide National Approach to Response (NAR)
Implementation Plan to address the overall preparedness framework for five simultaneous
incidents of national significance. This plan will build on the 2006 ER Business Plan. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has developed 15 nationally significant scenarios,
many of which will require a substantial response effort by EPA. The five DHS scenarios
selected for agency planning are: a chemical incident (blister agent), a radiation incident (RDD),
a biological incident (anthrax), and two natural disasters (earthquake and hurricane). A
workgroup is currently preparing resource estimates for each of the scenarios.
These estimates will then be used by regional groupings to develop response plans that consider
among other things, state and local relationships, unique challenges and regional response assets.
The development of the NAR Implementation Plan will be an iterative process. It will identify
any gaps and be used to prioritize future preparedness activities.
Highlights of progress include:
. Developed an Incident Management Handbook that provides guidance on
organizational structure and outlines the communications flow during an
incident of national significance.
. Developed and implemented an Information Technology Strategy that allows
EPA to share information with its partners through the Emergency Management
Portal and with the general public from its public web site.
. Formed an Administrative and Finance Workgroup to address procurement,
property tracking, and pay issues.
Developed a draft plan for acquiring and maintaining field communications
equipment for EPA's emergency response programs.
. Issued the final version of EPA's National Approach to Response (NAR) Crisis
Communication Plan. The plan addresses roles and responsibilities for incidents
of national significance.
. Developed draft guidance for the Response Support Corps which will support
the emergency response staff.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Implement the Emergency Response Business Plan's approach for making the
necessary changes in the management of personnel, financial, and other
resources through NAR priority projects.
Continue to develop training courses related to weapons of mass destruction and
pandemic and avian influenza.
21. Voluntary Programs
Scope of Challenge: EPA supports and advocates a range of voluntary programs addressing a
wide variety of environmental challenges. However, the growth of these programs has not been
1191
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
matched by appropriate organization and oversight. OIG work has found that EPA does not have
(1) Agency-wide policies on key evaluative elements; (2) consistent and reliable data; (3) operational
guidelines that allow for comparative assessments; (4) definitions that help staff categorize or
identify voluntary programs; and (5) a systematic process to develop, test, market, and evaluate the
effectiveness of voluntary programs. (OIG)
EPA programs and regions support a range of voluntary/partnership programs, which function as
an adjunct to regulatory programs or fill in where a regulatory approach is not practicable. These
programs are diverse in size, scope, environmental media, target environmental issue, and
stakeholder base. They range from high-profile programs such as ENERGY STAR and
Performance Track to smaller, more targeted programs such as Sunwise or Natural Gas STAR.
There are more than 50 partnership programs Agency-wide which are managed by many
different program offices and regions, each of which is responsible for ensuring that programs
are well designed and well run. Thus, it is difficult for any single office response to address such
a broadly-defined management challenge.
However, the Agency's Innovation Action Council (IAC), which directs and oversees the
Agency's innovation agenda, has initiated a number of efforts to clarify the goals and measures
and evaluate the results of innovative and "voluntary" partnership programs. As part of this
initiative, a Partnership Program Coordination Team has been formed within OPEI's National
Center for Environmental Innovation.
Highlights of progress include:
Issued guidelines on optimal program design, performance measurement, and
marketing.
. Implemented a notification system for new and expanding programs.
. Established a charter that includes an Agency-wide workgroup and network to
maximize uniform understanding of and compliance with relevant policies and
procedures.
. Established a coordination function in the Office of the Administrator to
encourage sound program design and management, with a special emphasis on
performance measurement.
Finalized guidelines for marketing partnership programs, and issued a
compilation of previous guidelines. Guidelines are available on the Partners
intranet website at: http://www.epa.gov/partners.
Formed a cross-agency Partnership Program Review Workgroup, charged with
developing a framework for the systematic evaluation and assessment of
partnership programs.
Plans for further improvements include:
. Initiate the development of a new set of Guidelines on Program Evaluation for
partnership programs.
. Finalize a Progress/Accomplishments Report that will compile the
environmental results reported by programs across the Agency.
Conduct training on best practices and procedures, and arrange seminars and
discussion groups on new research on trends and strategies.
1192
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA USER FEE PROGRAM
In FY 2009, EPA will have several user fee programs in operation. These user fee programs and
proposals are as follows:
Current Fees: Pesticides
The FY 2009 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. In FY 2009, the
Agency expects to collect $22 million in Maintenance fees under current law.
• 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
2009, the Agency expects to collect $6 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 2009 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
collected for this activity are deposited in the U.S. Treasury. EPA estimates that $1 million will
be deposited in FY 2009.
1193
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
• 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. In addition to cars and trucks, the fees 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, watercraft, jet-skis), locomotive, aircraft and recreational vehicles (off-road
motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles). Since then, EPA has added or proposed to
apply certification fees to additional industry sectors as new programs are developed, such as for
stationary engines and for evaporative requirements for nonroad engines. In FY 2009, EPA
expects to collect $19.4 million from this fee.
Fee Proposals: Pesticides
• 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 2012. Legislative language will be submitted to allow for the
collection of Pesticide Tolerance fees in FY 2009 and the Administration will submit legislative
language proposing to collect $13 million in Pesticide Tolerance fees in FY 2009.
• Enhanced Registration Services
Legislative language will be submitted proposing to publish a new fee schedule to collect an
additional $12 million in FY 2009 to better align fee collections with program costs. Currently
those who directly benefit from EPA's registration services cover only a 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 $22 million in Maintenance fees in FY 2009.
Legislative language will be submitted to allow the collection of an additional $23 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.
1194
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Fee Proposals: Other
• Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee
Under the current fee structure, the Agency would collect $1.8 million in FY 2009. Legislative
language will be submitted to remove the statutory cap in the Toxic Substances Control Act on
Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fees. In FY 2009, EPA expects to collect an additional $4
million by removing the statutory cap.
1195
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
In FY 2009, the Agency begins its thirteenth 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 (CFO) 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.
Four Agency activities provided in FY 2008 will continue into FY 2009. 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 and relocation services, which are both managed by
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
The Agency's FY 2009 budget request includes resources for these four activities in each
National Program Manager's submission, totaling approximately $185.0 million. These
estimated resources may be increased to incorporate the additional service needs of program
offices 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
2009, the Agency will continue to market its information technology and relocation 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.
1196
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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
1197
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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
1198
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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
1199
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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
1200
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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
1201
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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.
FY2008
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$1,000.0
FY2009
Goal/
Objective
Goall,
/~O-i 1
UuJ. 1
FY2009
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$0.0
1202
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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)
FY2008
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$215,825.0
FY2009
Goal/
Objective
Goall,
/~\Vvi 1
OuJ. 1
FY2009
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$185,580.0
1203
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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.
FY2008
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$10,769.0
$7,948.0
$218,206.0
$200,857.0
FY2009
Goal/
Objective
Goall,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 1,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. z
Goal 2,
Obj. 2
Goal 2,
f~\Ki O
(JDJ. Z
FY2009
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$13,300.0
$8,074.0
$221,664.0
$184,540.0
1204
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Wetlands
Program
Development
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.
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, 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 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.
FY2008
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$16,567.0
$97,554.0
$4,873.0
$10,721.0
FY2009
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,
/~\Vvi "2
OuJ. 3
Goal 2,
/~\Vvi 1
OuJ. 1
Goal 2,
/~\Vvi 1
OuJ. 1
Goal 2,
/~O-i 1
(JuJ. 1
FY2009
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$16,830.0
$99,100.0
$4,950.0
$10,891.0
1205
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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.
FY2008
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$9,746.0
$101,734.0
$48,723.0
FY2009
Goal/
Objective
Goal 2,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 3,
i"~Yl-vi 1
ODJ. 1
f~\]^ ' 'S
Obj. 2
Goal 4,
f~\Ki O
UuJ. 2
FY2009
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$9,900.0
$103,346.0
$49,495.0
1206
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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);
EPActof2005,
Title XV -
Ethanol and
Motor Fuels,
Subtitle B -
Underground
Storage Tank
Compliance,
Sections 1521-
1533, P.L. 109-
58, 42 U.S.C.
15 801; 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 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.
FY2008
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$2,461.0
$12,768.0
FY2009
Goal/
Objective
Goal3,
rvhi i
WUJ. 1
Goal 4,
rvhi i
WUJ. 1
FY2009
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$22,800.0
$12,970.0
1207
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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
FY2008
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$13,352.0
$5,019.0
$18,419.0
FY2009
Goal/
Objective
Goal 4,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 5,
/~O-i 1
UuJ. 1
Goal 5,
/~\Vvi 1
UuJ. 1
FY2009
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$13,564.0
$5,099.0
$18,711.0
1208
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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
Helps states,
territories, tribes,
and intertribal
consortia
develop the
information
management and
technology
(IM/IT)
capabilities they
need to
participate in the
Exchange
Network, to
continue and
expand data-
sharing
programs, and to
improve access
to environmental
information.
FY2008
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$9,844.0
FY2009
Goal/
Objective
Goal5,
Obj.2
FY2009
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$11,000.0
1209
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Pollution
Prevention
Sector Program
(previously
Enforcement &
Compliance
Assurance)
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.
As appropriate,
CAA, Section
103; CWA,
Section 104;
FIFRA, Section
20; TSCA,
Sections 10 and
28; MPRSA,
Section 203;
SDWA, Section
1442; Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act of
1992, as
amended; TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
State,
Territories,
Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Multi-
Jurisdictional
Organizations,
Universities,
Associations of
Environmental
Regulatory
Personnel
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.
Assist in
developing
innovative
sector-based,
multi-media, or
single-media
approaches to
enforcement and
compliance
assurance.
Provide training
on sectors,
compliance and
enforcement,
and single or
multi-media
programs.
FY2008
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$4,863.0
$1,209.0
FY2009
Goal/
Objective
Goal5,
Obj.2
Goal 5,
/~\Vvi 1
Ob). 1
FY2009
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$4,940.0
$1,828.0
1210
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Grant Title
Tribal General
Assistance
Program
Statutory
Authorities
Indian
Environmental
General
Assistance
Program Act (42
U.S.C. 4368b);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Eligible
Recipients
Tribal
Governments,
Intertribal
Consortia
Eligible Uses
Plan and develop
Tribal
environmental
protection
programs.
FY2008
Enacted Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$56,037.0
FY2009
Goal/
Objective
Goal5,
Obj. 3
FY2009
President's
Budget
Dollars (X1000)
$57,925.0
1211
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM PROJECTS BY APPROPRIATION
(Dollars in Thousands)
Acquisition
Management
EPM
LUST
Superfund
Administrative Law
EPM
Alternative Dispute
Resolution
EPM
Superfund
Audits, Evaluations,
and Investigations
IG
Superfund
Beach / Fish
Programs
EPM
Brownfields
EPM
Brownfields Projects
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Beaches Protection
STAG
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$54,802.0
$29,992.0
$165.0
$24,645.0
$5,260.0
$5,260.0
$2,012.0
$1,175.0
$837.0
$45,157.0
$38,008.0
$7,149.0
$2,830.0
$2,830.0
$23,450.0
$23,450.0
$89,258.0
$89,258.0
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$53,118.0
$28,629.0
$162.0
$24,327.0
$5,178.0
$5,178.0
$1,985.0
$1,160.0
$825.0
$52,585.0
$41,099.0
$11,486.0
$2,789.0
$2,789.0
$23,665.0
$23,665.0
$93,518.0
$93,518.0
$9,746.0
$9,746.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$56,345.0
$31,195.0
$165.0
$24,985.0
$4,949.0
$4,949.0
$2,110.0
$1,264.0
$846.0
$46,647.0
$39,483.0
$7,164.0
$2,795.0
$2,795.0
$22,732.0
$22,732.0
$93,558.0
$93,558.0
$9,900.0
$9,900.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$3,227.0
$2,566.0
$3.0
$658.0
($229.0)
($229.0)
$125.0
$104.0
$21.0
($5,938.0)
($1,616.0)
($4,322.0)
$6.0
$6.0
($933.0)
($933.0)
$40.0
$40.0
$154.0
$154.0
1212
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Categorical Grant:
Brownfields
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Environmental
Information
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Hazardous Waste
Financial Assistance
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Homeland Security
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Lead
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Nonpoint Source (Sec.
319)
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Pesticides
Enforcement
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Pesticides Program
Implementation
STAG
Categorical Grant:
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
$12,850.0
$12,850.0
$103,346.0
$103,346.0
$4,950.0
$4,950.0
$13,564.0
$13,564.0
$194,040.0
$194,040.0
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
$12,970.0
$12,970.0
$221,664.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$48,723.0
$48,723.0
$9,844.0
$9,844.0
$101,734.0
$101,734.0
$4,873.0
$4,873.0
$13,352.0
$13,352.0
$200,857.0
$200,857.0
$18,419.0
$18,419.0
$12,768.0
$12,768.0
$218,206.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$49,495.0
$49,495.0
$11,000.0
$11,000.0
$103,346.0
$103,346.0
$4,950.0
$4,950.0
$13,564.0
$13,564.0
$184,540.0
$184,540.0
$18,711.0
$18,711.0
$12,970.0
$12,970.0
$221,664.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$772.0
$772.0
$1,156.0
$1,156.0
$1,612.0
$1,612.0
$77.0
$77.0
$212.0
$212.0
($16,317.0)
($16,317.0)
$292.0
$292.0
$202.0
$202.0
$3,458.0
Pollution Control
(Sec. 106)
1213
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Pollution Prevention
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS)
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Radon
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Sector Program
STAG
Categorical Grant:
State and Local Air
Quality Management
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Targeted Watersheds
STAG
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$221,664.0
$5,940.0
$5,940.0
$99,100.0
$99,100.0
$8,074.0
$8,074.0
$2,228.0
$2,228.0
$185,180.0
$185,180.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$218,206.0
$4,863.0
$4,863.0
$97,554.0
$97,554.0
$7,948.0
$7,948.0
$1,209.0
$1,209.0
$216,825.0
$216,825.0
$9,844.0
$9,844.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$221,664.0
$4,940.0
$4,940.0
$99,100.0
$99,100.0
$8,074.0
$8,074.0
$1,828.0
$1,828.0
$185,580.0
$185,580.0
$0.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$3,458.0
$77.0
$77.0
$1,546.0
$1,546.0
$126.0
$126.0
$619.0
$619.0
($31,245.0)
($31,245.0)
($9,844.0)
($9,844.0)
Categorical Grant:
Toxics Substances
Compliance
STAG
$5,099.0
$5,099.0
$5,019.0
$5,019.0
$5,099.0
$5,099.0
$80.0
$80.0
Categorical Grant:
Tribal Air Quality
Management
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Tribal General
$10,940.0
$10,940.0
$56,925.0
$10,769.0
$10,769.0
$56,037.0
$13,300.0
$13,300.0
$57,925.0
$2,531.0
$2,531.0
$1,888.0
1214
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Assistance Program
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC)
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Underground Storage
Tanks
STAG
Categorical Grant:
Wetlands Program
Development
STAG
Central Planning,
Budgeting, and
Finance
EPM
LUST
Superfund
Children and Other
Sensitive Populations:
Agency Coordination
EPM
Civil Enforcement
EPM
Oil Spills
Superfund
Civil Rights / Title VI
Compliance
EPM
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$56,925.0
$10,891.0
$10,891.0
$22,274.0
$22,274.0
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
$100,368.0
$74,960.0
$1,102.0
$24,306.0
$6,203.0
$6,203.0
$129,594.0
$126,645.0
$2,065.0
$884.0
$11,240.0
$11,240.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$56,037.0
$10,721.0
$10,721.0
$2,461.0
$2,461.0
$16,567.0
$16,567.0
$99,042.0
$73,949.0
$1,085.0
$24,008.0
$6,144.0
$6,144.0
$132,828.0
$129,886.0
$2,072.0
$870.0
$11,065.0
$11,065.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$57,925.0
$10,891.0
$10,891.0
$22,800.0
$22,800.0
$16,830.0
$16,830.0
$107,856.0
$80,623.0
$1,131.0
$26,102.0
$6,309.0
$6,309.0
$135,250.0
$133,017.0
$2,233.0
$0.0
$11,097.0
$11,097.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$1,888.0
$170.0
$170.0
$20,339.0
$20,339.0
$263.0
$263.0
$8,814.0
$6,674.0
$46.0
$2,094.0
$165.0
$165.0
$2,422.0
$3,131.0
$161.0
($870.0)
$32.0
$32.0
1215
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Clean Air Allowance
Trading Programs
EPM
S&T
Climate Protection
Program
EPM
S&T
Commission for
Environmental
Cooperation
EPM
Compliance
Assistance and
Centers
EPM
LUST
Oil Spills
Superfund
Compliance
Incentives
EPM
Superfund
Compliance
Monitoring
EPM
Superfund
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$27,647.0
$19,388.0
$8,259.0
$101,031.0
$87,927.0
$13,104.0
$4,022.0
$4,022.0
$30,548.0
$29,547.0
$688.0
$291.0
$22.0
$9,930.0
$9,786.0
$144.0
$94,610.0
$93,428.0
$1,182.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$28,246.0
$19,131.0
$9,115.0
$108,705.0
$90,374.0
$18,331.0
$3,962.0
$3,962.0
$28,742.0
$27,725.0
$709.0
$286.0
$22.0
$10,777.0
$10,618.0
$159.0
$89,891.0
$88,726.0
$1,165.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$28,157.0
$19,898.0
$8,259.0
$98,410.0
$87,008.0
$11,402.0
$0.0
$0.0
$27,513.0
$26,435.0
$753.0
$303.0
$22.0
$10,409.0
$10,263.0
$146.0
$97,217.0
$96,025.0
$1,192.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($89.0)
$767.0
($856.0)
($10,295.0)
($3,366.0)
($6,929.0)
($3,962.0)
($3,962.0)
($1,229.0)
($1,290.0)
$44.0
$17.0
$0.0
($368.0)
($355.0)
($13.0)
$7,326.0
$7,299.0
$27.0
Congressional,
Intergovernmental,
External Relations
EPM
$49,902.0
$49,747.0
$49,125.0
$48,971.0
$49,756.0
$49,756.0
$631.0
$785.0
1216
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Superfund
Congressionally
Mandated Projects
EPM
S&T
STAG
Criminal
Enforcement
EPM
Superfund
Diesel Emissions
Reduction Grant
Program
STAG
Drinking Water
Programs
EPM
S&T
Endocrine Disrupters
EPM
Enforcement Training
EPM
Superfund
Environment and
Trade
EPM
Environmental
Education
EPM
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$155.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$48,855.0
$39,688.0
$9,167.0
$35,000.0
$35,000.0
$100,383.0
$96,967.0
$3,416.0
$5,890.0
$5,890.0
$3,985.0
$3,145.0
$840.0
$1,945.0
$1,945.0
$0.0
$0.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$154.0
$162,476.0
$13,437.0
$5,316.0
$143,723.0
$49,795.0
$40,742.0
$9,053.0
$59,064.0
$59,064.0
$100,097.0
$96,722.0
$3,375.0
$8,663.0
$8,663.0
$3,923.0
$3,096.0
$827.0
$1,920.0
$1,920.0
$8,860.0
$8,860.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$52,214.0
$44,384.0
$7,830.0
$49,220.0
$49,220.0
$103,035.0
$99,476.0
$3,559.0
$5,847.0
$5,847.0
$3,901.0
$3,043.0
$858.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($154.0)
($162,476.0)
($13,437.0)
($5,316.0)
($143,723.0)
$2,419.0
$3,642.0
($1,223.0)
($9,844.0)
($9,844.0)
$2,938.0
$2,754.0
$184.0
($2,816.0)
($2,816.0)
($22.0)
($53.0)
$31.0
($1,920.0)
($1,920.0)
($8,860.0)
($8,860.0)
1217
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Environmental
Justice
EPM
Superfund
Exchange Network
EPM
Superfund
Facilities
Infrastructure and
Operations
B&F
EPM
LUST
Oil Spills
S&T
Superfund
Federal Stationary
Source Regulations
EPM
Federal Support for
Air Quality
Management
EPM
S&T
Federal Support for
Air Toxics Program
EPM
S&T
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,579.0
$3,822.0
$757.0
$16,797.0
$15,364.0
$1,433.0
$480,865.0
$26,931.0
$303,728.0
$901.0
$490.0
$73,859.0
$74,956.0
$26,504.0
$26,504.0
$101,376.0
$90,490.0
$10,886.0
$26,963.0
$24,711.0
$2,252.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$7,144.0
$6,399.0
$745.0
$16,548.0
$15,137.0
$1,411.0
$471,569.0
$26,511.0
$297,189.0
$887.0
$488.0
$72,707.0
$73,787.0
$26,091.0
$26,091.0
$101,582.0
$89,464.0
$12,118.0
$26,610.0
$24,390.0
$2,220.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$4,568.0
$3,811.0
$757.0
$19,491.0
$18,058.0
$1,433.0
$490,551.0
$26,931.0
$311,068.0
$902.0
$496.0
$74,884.0
$76,270.0
$26,787.0
$26,787.0
$106,624.0
$95,538.0
$11,086.0
$24,996.0
$22,693.0
$2,303.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($2,576.0)
($2,588.0)
$12.0
$2,943.0
$2,921.0
$22.0
$18,982.0
$420.0
$13,879.0
$15.0
$8.0
$2,177.0
$2,483.0
$696.0
$696.0
$5,042.0
$6,074.0
($1,032.0)
($1,614.0)
($1,697.0)
$83.0
Federal Vehicle and
Fuels Standards and
Certification
$65,722.0
$66,796.0
$69,543.0
$2,747.0
1218
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
S&T
Financial Assistance
Grants / IAG
Management
EPM
Superfund
Forensics Support
S&T
Superfund
Geographic Program:
Chesapeake Bay
EPM
Geographic Program:
Great Lakes
EPM
Geographic Program:
Gulf of Mexico
EPM
Geographic Program:
Lake Champlain
EPM
Geographic Program:
Long Island Sound
EPM
Geographic Program:
Other
EPM
Great Lakes Legacy
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$65,722.0
$26,488.0
$23,439.0
$3,049.0
$17,385.0
$15,075.0
$2,310.0
$28,768.0
$28,768.0
$21,757.0
$21,757.0
$4,457.0
$4,457.0
$934.0
$934.0
$467.0
$467.0
$8,575.0
$8,575.0
$35,000.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$66,796.0
$26,243.0
$23,242.0
$3,001.0
$18,632.0
$14,882.0
$3,750.0
$30,528.0
$30,528.0
$21,686.0
$21,686.0
$5,618.0
$5,618.0
$2,707.0
$2,707.0
$4,922.0
$4,922.0
$32,072.0
$32,072.0
$34,454.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$69,543.0
$29,093.0
$25,977.0
$3,116.0
$17,998.0
$15,557.0
$2,441.0
$29,001.0
$29,001.0
$22,261.0
$22,261.0
$4,578.0
$4,578.0
$934.0
$934.0
$467.0
$467.0
$7,715.0
$7,715.0
$35,000.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$2,747.0
$2,850.0
$2,735.0
$115.0
($634.0)
$675.0
($1,309.0)
($1,527.0)
($1,527.0)
$575.0
$575.0
($1,040.0)
($1,040.0)
($1,773.0)
($1,773.0)
($4,455.0)
($4,455.0)
($24,357.0)
($24,357.0)
$546.0
Act
1219
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPM
Homeland Security:
Communication and
Information
EPM
Homeland Security:
Critical
Infrastructure
Protection
EPM
S&T
Superfund
Homeland Security:
Preparedness,
Response, and
Recovery
EPM
S&T
Superfund
Homeland Security:
Protection of EPA
Personnel and
Infrastructure
B&F
EPM
S&T
Superfund
Human Health Risk
Assessment
S&T
Superfund
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$35,000.0
$6,906.0
$6,906.0
$35,230.0
$7,787.0
$25,586.0
$1,857.0
$89,429.0
$3,381.0
$40,768.0
$45,280.0
$15,403.0
$7,870.0
$6,345.0
$594.0
$594.0
$42,828.0
$38,856.0
$3,972.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$34,454.0
$6,822.0
$6,822.0
$24,850.0
$7,665.0
$15,357.0
$1,828.0
$86,151.0
$3,329.0
$38,193.0
$44,629.0
$15,165.0
$7,747.0
$6,248.0
$585.0
$585.0
$42,244.0
$38,334.0
$3,910.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$35,000.0
$6,940.0
$6,940.0
$35,569.0
$6,759.0
$27,131.0
$1,679.0
$106,298.0
$3,412.0
$46,210.0
$56,676.0
$16,273.0
$8,070.0
$6,415.0
$594.0
$1,194.0
$42,648.0
$39,323.0
$3,325.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$546.0
$118.0
$118.0
$10,719.0
($906.0)
$11,774.0
($149.0)
$20,147.0
$83.0
$8,017.0
$12,047.0
$1,108.0
$323.0
$167.0
$9.0
$609.0
$404.0
$989.0
($585.0)
Human Resources
Management
$45,214.0
$44,732.0
$48,712.0
$3,980.0
1220
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPM
LUST
Superfund
IT / Data
Management
EPM
LUST
Oil Spills
S&T
Superfund
Indoor Air: Radon
Program
EPM
S&T
Information Security
EPM
Superfund
Infrastructure
Assistance: Alaska
Native Villages
STAG
Infrastructure
Assistance: Clean
Water SRF
STAG
Infrastructure
Assistance: Drinking
Water SRF
STAG
Infrastructure
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$40,175.0
$3.0
$5,036.0
$111,067.0
$91,019.0
$177.0
$34.0
$3,499.0
$16,338.0
$5,857.0
$5,429.0
$428.0
$6,375.0
$5,583.0
$792.0
$15,500.0
$15,500.0
$687,554.0
$687,554.0
$842,167.0
$842,167.0
$10,000.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$39,760.0
$3.0
$4,969.0
$110,496.0
$90,753.0
$174.0
$33.0
$3,453.0
$16,083.0
$5,785.0
$5,363.0
$422.0
$6,284.0
$5,504.0
$780.0
$24,610.0
$24,610.0
$689,080.0
$689,080.0
$829,029.0
$829,029.0
$19,688.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$43,646.0
$3.0
$5,063.0
$115,277.0
$94,360.0
$162.0
$24.0
$3,859.0
$16,872.0
$5,929.0
$5,488.0
$441.0
$6,591.0
$5,790.0
$801.0
$15,500.0
$15,500.0
$555,000.0
$555,000.0
$842,167.0
$842,167.0
$10,000.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$3,886.0
$0.0
$94.0
$4,781.0
$3,607.0
($12.0)
($9.0)
$406.0
$789.0
$144.0
$125.0
$19.0
$307.0
$286.0
$21.0
($9,110.0)
($9,110.0)
($134,080.0)
($134,080.0)
$13,138.0
$13,138.0
($9,688.0)
Assistance: Mexico
1221
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Border
STAG
International
Capacity Building
EPM
International Sources
of Pollution
EPM
LUST / UST
EPM
LUST
LUST Cooperative
Agreements
LUST
Legal Advice:
Environmental
Program
EPM
Superfund
Legal Advice:
Support Program
EPM
Marine Pollution
EPM
NEPA
Implementation
EPM
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$10,000.0
$5,311.0
$5,311.0
$0.0
$0.0
$22,277.0
$11,719.0
$10,558.0
$58,207.0
$58,207.0
$39,972.0
$39,366.0
$606.0
$13,986.0
$13,986.0
$12,851.0
$12,851.0
$14,366.0
$14,366.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$19,688.0
$5,228.0
$5,228.0
$0.0
$0.0
$23,540.0
$11,572.0
$11,968.0
$90,178.0
$90,178.0
$40,220.0
$39,480.0
$740.0
$14,117.0
$14,117.0
$12,674.0
$12,674.0
$14,142.0
$14,142.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$10,000.0
$0.0
$0.0
$12,408.0
$12,408.0
$22,804.0
$12,256.0
$10,548.0
$58,207.0
$58,207.0
$40,556.0
$39,925.0
$631.0
$14,442.0
$14,442.0
$13,185.0
$13,185.0
$16,295.0
$16,295.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($9,688.0)
($5,228.0)
($5,228.0)
$12,408.0
$12,408.0
($736.0)
$684.0
($1,420.0)
($31,971.0)
($31,971.0)
$336.0
$445.0
($109.0)
$325.0
$325.0
$511.0
$511.0
$2,153.0
$2,153.0
National Estuary
Program / Coastal
$17,203.0
$26,779.0
$17,239.0
($9,540.0)
1222
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Waterways
EPM
Not Specified
Rescissions
Oil Spill: Prevention,
Preparedness and
Response
Oil Spills
POPs Implementation
EPM
Pesticides: Protect
Human Health from
Pesticide Risk
EPM
S&T
Pesticides: Protect the
Environment from
Pesticide Risk
EPM
S&T
Pesticides: Realize the
Value of Pesticide
Availability
EPM
S&T
Pollution Prevention
Program
EPM
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$17,203.0
($5,000.0)
($5,000.0)
$13,499.0
$13,499.0
$1,831.0
$1,831.0
$65,808.0
$62,514.0
$3,294.0
$43,865.0
$41,750.0
$2,115.0
$12,586.0
$12,114.0
$472.0
$19,935.0
$19,935.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$26,779.0
($5,000.0)
($5,000.0)
$13,290.0
$13,290.0
$1,808.0
$1,808.0
$65,069.0
$61,819.0
$3,250.0
$43,301.0
$41,214.0
$2,087.0
$12,424.0
$11,959.0
$465.0
$16,362.0
$16,362.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$17,239.0
($10,000.0)
($10,000.0)
$13,927.0
$13,927.0
$0.0
$0.0
$64,059.0
$60,606.0
$3,453.0
$43,431.0
$41,215.0
$2,216.0
$13,365.0
$12,870.0
$495.0
$18,398.0
$18,398.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($9,540.0)
($5,000.0)
($5,000.0)
$637.0
$637.0
($1,808.0)
($1,808.0)
($1,010.0)
($1,213.0)
$203.0
$130.0
$1.0
$129.0
$941.0
$911.0
$30.0
$2,036.0
$2,036.0
RCRA: Corrective
Action
$39,573.0
$39,076.0
$39,018.0
($58.0)
1223
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPM
RCRA: Waste
Management
EPM
RCRA: Waste
Minimization &
Recycling
EPM
Radiation: Protection
EPM
S&T
Superfund
Radiation: Response
Preparedness
EPM
S&T
Reduce Risks from
Indoor Air
EPM
S&T
Regional Geographic
Initiatives
EPM
Regional Science and
Technology
EPM
Regulatory
Innovation
EPM
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$39,573.0
$69,158.0
$69,158.0
$13,666.0
$13,666.0
$14,679.0
$10,186.0
$2,120.0
$2,373.0
$6,649.0
$2,928.0
$3,721.0
$22,228.0
$21,440.0
$788.0
$9,553.0
$9,553.0
$3,574.0
$3,574.0
$23,866.0
$23,866.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$39,076.0
$66,297.0
$66,297.0
$13,495.0
$13,495.0
$14,486.0
$10,057.0
$2,087.0
$2,342.0
$6,561.0
$2,882.0
$3,679.0
$22,409.0
$21,632.0
$777.0
$0.0
$0.0
$3,518.0
$3,518.0
$21,327.0
$21,327.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$39,018.0
$67,111.0
$67,111.0
$14,397.0
$14,397.0
$15,056.0
$10,533.0
$2,109.0
$2,414.0
$6,957.0
$2,941.0
$4,016.0
$19,970.0
$19,180.0
$790.0
$4,844.0
$4,844.0
$3,318.0
$3,318.0
$24,405.0
$24,405.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($58.0)
$814.0
$814.0
$902.0
$902.0
$570.0
$476.0
$22.0
$72.0
$396.0
$59.0
$337.0
($2,439.0)
($2,452.0)
$13.0
$4,844.0
$4,844.0
($200.0)
($200.0)
$3,078.0
$3,078.0
1224
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Regulatory/Economic-
Management and
Analysis
EPM
Research:
Computational
Toxicology
S&T
Research: Drinking
Water
S&T
Research: Endocrine
Disrupter
S&T
Research:
Fellowships
S&T
Research: Global
Change
S&T
Research: Human
Health and
Ecosystems
S&T
Research: Land
Protection and
Restoration
LUST
Oil Spills
S&T
Superfund
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$20,104.0
$20,104.0
$15,103.0
$15,103.0
$48,548.0
$48,548.0
$10,131.0
$10,131.0
$8,438.0
$8,438.0
$16,908.0
$16,908.0
$145,046.0
$145,046.0
$32,379.0
$660.0
$901.0
$10,737.0
$20,081.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$16,381.0
$16,381.0
$12,135.0
$12,135.0
$48,775.0
$48,775.0
$10,317.0
$10,317.0
$9,845.0
$9,845.0
$19,688.0
$19,688.0
$153,032.0
$153,032.0
$31,896.0
$650.0
$887.0
$10,591.0
$19,768.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$20,588.0
$20,588.0
$14,863.0
$14,863.0
$45,283.0
$45,283.0
$9,502.0
$9,502.0
$8,887.0
$8,887.0
$16,365.0
$16,365.0
$144,742.0
$144,742.0
$35,488.0
$413.0
$704.0
$13,350.0
$21,021.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$4,207.0
$4,207.0
$2,728.0
$2,728.0
($3,492.0)
($3,492.0)
($815.0)
($815.0)
($958.0)
($958.0)
($3,323.0)
($3,323.0)
($8,290.0)
($8,290.0)
$3,592.0
($237.0)
($183.0)
$2,759.0
$1,253.0
1225
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Research: Pesticides
and Toxics
S&T
Research: Water
Quality
S&T
Research: Clean Air
S&T
Research:
Sustainability
S&T
Science Advisory
Board
EPM
Science Policy and
Biotechnology
EPM
Small Business
Ombudsman
EPM
Small Minority
Business Assistance
EPM
State and Local
Prevention and
Preparedness
EPM
Stratospheric Ozone:
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$24,795.0
$24,795.0
$56,454.0
$56,454.0
$81,054.0
$81,054.0
$22,478.0
$22,478.0
$4,790.0
$4,790.0
$1,780.0
$1,780.0
$3,261.0
$3,261.0
$2,466.0
$2,466.0
$12,960.0
$12,960.0
$4,489.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$24,459.0
$24,459.0
$55,573.0
$55,573.0
$79,993.0
$79,993.0
$22,127.0
$22,127.0
$4,727.0
$4,727.0
$1,752.0
$1,752.0
$3,210.0
$3,210.0
$2,428.0
$2,428.0
$12,784.0
$12,784.0
$5,119.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$26,568.0
$26,568.0
$56,179.0
$56,179.0
$80,588.0
$80,588.0
$19,970.0
$19,970.0
$5,083.0
$5,083.0
$1,675.0
$1,675.0
$3,217.0
$3,217.0
$2,411.0
$2,411.0
$13,298.0
$13,298.0
$4,696.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$2,109.0
$2,109.0
$606.0
$606.0
$595.0
$595.0
($2,157.0)
($2,157.0)
$356.0
$356.0
($77.0)
($77.0)
$7.0
$7.0
($17.0)
($17.0)
$514.0
$514.0
($423.0)
Domestic Programs
1226
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPM
Stratospheric Ozone:
Multilateral Fund
EPM
Superfund: EPA
Emergency
Preparedness
Superfund
Superfund:
Emergency Response
and Removal
Superfund
Superfund:
Enforcement
Superfund
Superfund: Federal
Facilities
Superfund
Superfund: Remedial
Superfund
Superfund: Support
to Other Federal
Agencies
Superfund
Superfund: Federal
Facilities
Enforcement
Superfund
Surface Water
Protection
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$4,489.0
$9,865.0
$9,865.0
$9,318.0
$9,318.0
$191,880.0
$191,880.0
$161,610.0
$161,610.0
$31,879.0
$31,879.0
$584,836.0
$584,836.0
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
$9,843.0
$9,843.0
$196,092.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,119.0
$9,711.0
$9,711.0
$9,195.0
$9,195.0
$190,011.0
$190,011.0
$164,845.0
$164,845.0
$31,447.0
$31,447.0
$591,078.0
$591,078.0
$6,472.0
$6,472.0
$9,726.0
$9,726.0
$193,546.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$4,696.0
$9,865.0
$9,865.0
$9,504.0
$9,504.0
$193,853.0
$193,853.0
$163,678.0
$163,678.0
$31,440.0
$31,440.0
$586,120.0
$586,120.0
$6,575.0
$6,575.0
$10,225.0
$10,225.0
$198,706.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($423.0)
$154.0
$154.0
$309.0
$309.0
$3,842.0
$3,842.0
($1,167.0)
($1,167.0)
($7.0)
($7.0)
($4,958.0)
($4,958.0)
$103.0
$103.0
$499.0
$499.0
$5,160.0
1227
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPM
TRI / Right to Know
EPM
Toxic Substances:
Chemical Risk
Management
EPM
Toxic Substances:
Chemical Risk Review
and Reduction
EPM
Toxic Substances:
Lead Risk Reduction
Program
EPM
Trade and
Governance
EPM
Tribal - Capacity
Building
EPM
US Mexico Border
EPM
Wetlands
EPM
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$196,092.0
$15,728.0
$15,728.0
$5,654.0
$5,654.0
$45,046.0
$45,046.0
$13,546.0
$13,546.0
$0.0
$0.0
$11,477.0
$11,477.0
$4,646.0
$4,646.0
$21,518.0
$21,518.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$193,546.0
$15,504.0
$15,504.0
$5,585.0
$5,585.0
$45,672.0
$45,672.0
$13,335.0
$13,335.0
$0.0
$0.0
$11,328.0
$11,328.0
$5,439.0
$5,439.0
$21,248.0
$21,248.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$198,706.0
$15,109.0
$15,109.0
$6,027.0
$6,027.0
$46,477.0
$46,477.0
$13,652.0
$13,652.0
$6,216.0
$6,216.0
$11,710.0
$11,710.0
$0.0
$0.0
$22,223.0
$22,223.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$5,160.0
($395.0)
($395.0)
$442.0
$442.0
$805.0
$805.0
$317.0
$317.0
$6,216.0
$6,216.0
$382.0
$382.0
($5,439.0)
($5,439.0)
$975.0
$975.0
TOTAL, EPA
$7,199,400.0 $7,472,324.0 $7,142,520.0
($329,804.0)
1228
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
PROGRAM PROJECTS BY PROGRAM AREA
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
FY 2007
Actuals
FY 2008
Pres Bud
FY 2008
Enacted
FY 2009
Pres Bud
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
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
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Subtotal, Air Toxics and Quality
1.1
$9,104.1
$1,804.1
$58,196.0
$2,126.1
$3,375.6
$83,267.0
$8,259.0
$10,886.0
$2,252.0
$65,722.0
$2,120.0
$3,721.0
$92,960.0
$9,115.0
$12,118.0
$2,220.0
$66,796.0
$2,087.0
$3,679.0
$96,015.0
$8,259.0
$11,086.0
$2,303.0
$69,543.0
$2,109.0
$4,016.0
$97,316.0
($856.0)
($1,032.0)
$83.0
$2,747.0
$22.0
$337.0
$1,301.0
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
$14,624.1
$13,104.0
$18,331.0
$11,402.0
($6,929.0)
Enforcement
Forensics Support
$13,949.3
$15,075.0
$14,882.0
$15,557.0
$675.0
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure
Protection
Water Sentinel
Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection (other
activities)
Subtotal, Homeland Security: Critical
Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Decontamination
Laboratory Preparedness and Response
Safe Buildings
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
$3,183.6
$21,884.0
$11,705.0
$22,637.0
$10,932.0
$7,391.8
$10,575.4
$21,025.2
$618.6
$4,242.2
$13,117.6
$39,003.6
$2,023.9
$51,602.9
$3,702.0
$25,586.0
$20,738.0
$600.0
$4,000.0
$15,430.0
$40,768.0
$594.0
$66,948.0
$3,652.0
$15,357.0
$20,444.0
$591.0
$1,969.0
$15,189.0
$38,193.0
$585.0
$54,135.0
$4,494.0
$27,131.0
$28,805.0
$500.0
$2,000.0
$14,905.0
$46,210.0
$594.0
$73,935.0
$842.0
$11,774.0
$8,361.0
($91.0)
$31.0
($284.0)
$8,017.0
$9.0
$19,800.0
Indoor Air
1229
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
(other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
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: Registration of New Pesticides
Pesticides: Review / Reregistration of Existing
Pesticides
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
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
FY 2007
Actuals
$434.1
$791.2
$1,225.3
$4,522.1
$13,085.0
$9,110.1
$3,403.6
$7,287.5
$32,886.2
$32,886.2
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$2,570.3
$2,885.8
$5,456.1
$13,521.3
$0.0
$20,449.9
$61,664.0
$95,635.2
$44,342.9
$54,428.5
$98,771.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$428.0
$788.0
$1,216.0
$3,499.0
$35,521.0
$18,392.0
$11,179.0
$8,767.0
$73,859.0
$73,859.0
$3,294.0
$2,115.0
$472.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,881.0
$0.0
$81,054.0
$16,908.0
$0.0
$97,962.0
$48,548.0
$56,454.0
$105,002.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$422.0
$777.0
$1,199.0
$3,453.0
$34,967.0
$18,105.0
$11,005.0
$8,630.0
$72,707.0
$72,707.0
$3,250.0
$2,087.0
$465.0
$0.0
$0.0
$5,802.0
$0.0
$79,993.0
$19,688.0
$0.0
$99,681.0
$48,775.0
$55,573.0
$104,348.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$441.0
$790.0
$1,231.0
$3,859.0
$35,521.0
$18,547.0
$11,989.0
$8,827.0
$74,884.0
$74,884.0
$3,453.0
$2,216.0
$495.0
$0.0
$0.0
$6,164.0
$0.0
$80,588.0
$16,365.0
$0.0
$96,953.0
$45,283.0
$56,179.0
$101,462.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$19.0
$13.0
$32.0
$406.0
$554.0
$442.0
$984.0
$197.0
$2,177.0
$2,177.0
$203.0
$129.0
$30.0
$0.0
$0.0
$362.0
$0.0
$595.0
($3,323.0)
$0.0
($2,728.0)
($3,492.0)
$606.0
($2,886.0)
1230
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Research / Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
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
FY 2007
Actuals
$16,456.4
FY 2008
Pres Bud
FY 2008
Enacted
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$0.0
$5,316.0
$0.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($5,316.0)
$35,018.0
$12,159.5
$10,476.7
$12,231.1
$0.0
$0.0
$167,910.0
$167,910.0
$237,795.3
$38,856.0
$15,103.0
$10,131.0
$8,438.0
$72,285.0
$72,761.0
$0.0
$145,046.0
$217,574.0
$38,334.0
$12,135.0
$10,317.0
$9,845.0
$77,260.0
$75,772.0
$0.0
$153,032.0
$223,663.0
$39,323.0
$14,863.0
$9,502.0
$8,887.0
$74,752.0
$69,990.0
$0.0
$144,742.0
$217,317.0
$989.0
$2,728.0
($815.0)
($958.0)
($2,508.0)
($5,782.0)
$0.0
($8,290.0)
($6,346.0)
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
Clean Diesel Initiative
$10,907.3
$2,284.9
$10,737.0
$0.0
$10,591.0
$0.0
$13,350.0
$0.0
$2,759.0
$0.0
$1,410.1
$24,864.5
$28,559.5
$29,425.2
$3,256.6
$728,339.9
$18,621.2
$22,744.8
$0.0
$22,478.0
$22,478.0
$24,795.0
$3,416.0
$754,506.0
$19,388.0
$26,504.0
$0.0
$22,127.0
$22,127.0
$24,459.0
$3,375.0
$760,084.0
$19,131.0
$26,091.0
$0.0
$19,970.0
$19,970.0
$26,568.0
$3,559.0
$763,527.0
$19,898.0
$26,787.0
$0.0
($2,157.0)
($2,157.0)
$2,109.0
$184.0
$3,443.0
$767.0
$696.0
$97.9
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
1231
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management (other activities)
Subtotal, Federal Support for Air Quality
Management
Federal Support for Air Toxics Program
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Subtotal, Air Toxics and Quality
Brownflelds
Brownfields
Climate Protection Program
Climate Protection Program
Energy STAR
Methane to markets
Asian Pacific Partnership
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry
Climate Protection Program (other
activities)
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Subtotal, Climate Protection Program
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Compliance Incentives
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Environmental Justice
NEPA Implementation
Subtotal, Enforcement
FY 2007
Actuals
$95,478.1
$95,576.0
$25,081.8
$10,172.7
$2,809.7
$5,280.0
$11,315.0
$191,601.2
$25,838.4
$38,573.4
$2,351.1
$3,203.0
$0.0
$47,124.6
$91,252.1
$91,252.1
$28,226.9
$9,448.8
$90,724.6
$128,400.3
$123,003.7
$39,721.6
$2,668.3
$6,319.2
$13,863.5
$185,576.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$90,490.0
$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
$5,000.0
$0.0
$34,565.0
$87,927.0
$87,927.0
$29,547.0
$9,786.0
$93,428.0
$132,761.0
$126,645.0
$39,688.0
$3,145.0
$3,822.0
$14,366.0
$187,666.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$89,464.0
$89,464.0
$24,390.0
$10,057.0
$2,882.0
$5,119.0
$9,711.0
$186,845.0
$23,665.0
$48,236.0
$4,369.0
$0.0
$3,445.0
$34,324.0
$90,374.0
$90,374.0
$27,725.0
$10,618.0
$88,726.0
$127,069.0
$129,886.0
$40,742.0
$3,096.0
$6,399.0
$14,142.0
$194,265.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$95,538.0
$95,538.0
$22,693.0
$10,533.0
$2,941.0
$4,696.0
$9,865.0
$192,951.0
$22,732.0
$44,221.0
$4,546.6
$5,000.0
$0.0
$33,240.4
$87,008.0
$87,008.0
$26,435.0
$10,263.0
$96,025.0
$132,723.0
$133,017.0
$44,384.0
$3,043.0
$3,811.0
$16,295.0
$200,550.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$6,074.0
$6,074.0
($1,697.0)
$476.0
$59.0
($423.0)
$154.0
$6,106.0
($933.0)
($4,015.0)
$177.6
$5,000.0
($3,445.0)
($1,083.6)
($3,366.0)
($3,366.0)
($1,290.0)
($355.0)
$7,299.0
$5,654.0
$3,131.0
$3,642.0
($53.0)
($2,588.0)
$2,153.0
$6,285.0
Environmental Protection / Congressional
Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
$25,478.3
$0.0
$13,437.0
$0.0
($13,437.0)
1232
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2007
Actuals
FY 2008
Pres Bud
FY 2008
Enacted
FY 2009
Pres Bud
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
Geographic Programs
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Geographic Program: Great Lakes
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Geographic Program: Other
San Francisco Bay
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
Lake Pontchartrain
Community Action for a Renewed
Environment (CAKE)
Geographic Program: Other (other
activities)
Subtotal, Geographic Program: Other
Regional Geographic Initiatives
Subtotal, Geographic Programs
$20,274.1
$23,522.7
$1,361.4
$4,407.4
$997.0
$0.0
$1,162.3
$969.4
$2,515.0
$5,057.5
$9,704.2
$6,302.5
$66,569.3
$28,768.0
$21,757.0
$467.0
$4,457.0
$934.0
$0.0
$1,000.0
$978.0
$3,448.0
$3,149.0
$8,575.0
$9,553.0
$74,511.0
$30,528.0
$21,686.0
$4,922.0
$5,618.0
$2,707.0
$4,922.0
$19,688.0
$963.0
$3,394.0
$3,105.0
$32,072.0
$0.0
$97,533.0
$29,001.0
$22,261.0
$467.0
$4,578.0
$934.0
$0.0
$1,000.0
$978.0
$2,448.0
$3,289.0
$7,715.0
$4,844.0
$69,800.0
($1,527.0)
$575.0
($4,455.0)
($1,040.0)
($1,773.0)
($4,922.0)
($18,688.0)
$15.0
($946.0)
$184.0
($24,357.0)
$4,844.0
($27,733.0)
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
$888.7
$7,230.3
$8,119.0
$500.0
$6,406.0
$6,906.0
$492.0
$6,330.0
$6,822.0
$0.0
$6,940.0
$6,940.0
($492.0)
$610.0
$118.0
$52.8
9,502.7
9,555.5
($2.5)
$99.0
$7,688.0
$7,787.0
$3,380.0
$97.0
$7,568.0
$7,665.0
$3,329.0
$99.0
$6,660.0
$6,759.0
$3,412.0
$2.0
($908.0)
($906.0)
$83.0
$3,396.8
$3,394.3
$6,219.1
$27,287.9
$1.0
$3,381.0
$6,345.0
$24,419.0
$0.0
$3,329.0
$6,248.0
$24,064.0
$0.0
$3,412.0
$6,415.0
$23,526.0
$0.0
$83.0
$167.0
($538.0)
1233
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Indoor Air
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Subtotal, Indoor Air
Information Exchange / Outreach
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency
Coordination
Environmental Education
Congressional, Intergovernmental, External
Relations
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
US Mexico Border
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Environment and Trade
International Capacity Building
POPs Implementation
International Sources of Pollution
Mexico Border
International Sources of Pollution (other
activities)
Subtotal, International Sources of Pollution
Trade and Governance
Subtotal, International Programs
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
FY 2007
Actuals
$5,201.2
$21,425.6
$26,626.8
$4,968.5
$7,807.2
$49,193.3
$17,541.7
$3,761.9
$2,437.3
$12,867.6
$14,605.5
$10,861.3
$124,044.3
$5,790.7
$4,208.8
$1,817.4
$7,210.8
$1,682.4
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$20,710.1
$4,291.9
$99,196.3
$103,488.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$5,429.0
$21,440.0
$26,869.0
$6,203.0
$0.0
$49,747.0
$15,364.0
$3,261.0
$2,466.0
$12,960.0
$15,728.0
$11,477.0
$117,206.0
$4,646.0
$4,022.0
$1,945.0
$5,311.0
$1,831.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$17,755.0
$5,583.0
$91,019.0
$96,602.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$5,363.0
$21,632.0
$26,995.0
$6,144.0
$8,860.0
$48,971.0
$15,137.0
$3,210.0
$2,428.0
$12,784.0
$15,504.0
$11,328.0
$124,366.0
$5,439.0
$3,962.0
$1,920.0
$5,228.0
$1,808.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$18,357.0
$5,504.0
$90,753.0
$96,257.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$5,488.0
$19,180.0
$24,668.0
$6,309.0
$0.0
$49,756.0
$18,058.0
$3,217.0
$2,411.0
$13,298.0
$15,109.0
$11,710.0
$119,868.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$4,902.0
$7,506.0
$12,408.0
$6,216.0
$18,624.0
$5,790.0
$94,360.0
$100,150.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$125.0
($2,452.0)
($2,327.0)
$165.0
($8,860.0)
$785.0
$2,921.0
$7.0
($17.0)
$514.0
($395.0)
$382.0
($4,498.0)
($5,439.0)
($3,962.0)
($1,920.0)
($5,228.0)
($1,808.0)
$4,902.0
$7,506.0
$12,408.0
$6,216.0
$267.0
$286.0
$3,607.0
$3,893.0
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Administrative Law
$4,891.0
$5,260.0
$5,178.0
$4,949.0
($229.0)
1234
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
(other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Acquisition Management
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
FY 2007
Actuals
$970.5
$10,796.0
$38,242.4
$12,435.8
$3,399.8
$22,498.4
$17,755.0
$4,983.3
$115,972.2
$176,479.1
$14,682.7
$28,897.4
$107,894.9
$327,954.1
$64,431.2
$23,654.1
$20,564.5
$39,740.2
$476,344.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$21,436.3
$42,098.9
$54,442.2
$1,202.9
$119,180.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$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
$165,817.0
$8,210.0
$25,344.0
$104,357.0
$303,728.0
$74,960.0
$29,992.0
$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
FY 2008
Enacted
$1,160.0
$11,065.0
$39,480.0
$14,117.0
$3,518.0
$21,327.0
$16,381.0
$4,727.0
$116,953.0
$161,261.0
$8,082.0
$24,949.0
$102,897.0
$297,189.0
$73,949.0
$28,629.0
$23,242.0
$39,760.0
$462,769.0
$61,819.0
$41,214.0
$11,959.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,752.0
$116,744.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$1,264.0
$11,097.0
$39,925.0
$14,442.0
$3,318.0
$24,405.0
$20,588.0
$5,083.0
$125,071.0
$164,866.0
$11,333.0
$25,676.0
$109,193.0
$311,068.0
$80,623.0
$31,195.0
$25,977.0
$43,646.0
$492,509.0
$60,606.0
$41,215.0
$12,870.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,675.0
$116,366.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$104.0
$32.0
$445.0
$325.0
($200.0)
$3,078.0
$4,207.0
$356.0
$8,118.0
$3,605.0
$3,251.0
$727.0
$6,296.0
$13,879.0
$6,674.0
$2,566.0
$2,735.0
$3,886.0
$29,740.0
($1,213.0)
$1.0
$911.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
($77.0)
($378.0)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA: Waste Management
1235
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2008
Actuals Pres Bud Enacted
eManifest $0.0 $4,000.0 $0.0
RCRA: Waste Management (other
activities) $65,599.8 $65,158.0 $66,297.0
Subtotal, RCRA: Waste Management $65,599.8 $69,158.0 $66,297.0
RCRA: Corrective Action $39,373.3 $39,573.0 $39,076.0
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling $12,506.2 $13,666.0 $13,495.0
Subtotal, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) $117,479.3 $122,397.0 $118,868.0
FY 2009 Pres Bud
Pres Bud vs. Enacted
$2,000.0 $2,000.0
$65,111.0
$67,111.0
$39,018.0
$14,397.0
$120,526.0
($1,186.0)
$814.0
($58.0)
$902.0
$1,658.0
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Endocrine Disrupters
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction
HPV/VCCEP
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Review and Reduction (other activities)
Subtotal, Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk
Review and Reduction
Pollution Prevention Program
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Management
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program
Subtotal, Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
Water: Ecosystems
Great Lakes Legacy Act
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
Wetlands
Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems
Water: Human Health Protection
Beach / Fish Programs
Drinking Water Programs
Subtotal, Water: Human Health Protection
Water Quality Protection
Marine Pollution
Surface Water Protection
Subtotal, Water Quality Protection
9,855.8
$5,890.0
$8,663.0
$5,847.0
($2,816.0)
$44,701.7
$17,548.6
$8,249.6
$12,589.8
$92,945.5
$9,836.7
$24,296.7
$21,474.8
$19,641.9
$65,413.4
$2,821.4
$100,323.2
$103,144.6
$12,890.5
$191,797.2
$204,687.7
$45,046.0
$19,935.0
$5,654.0
$13,546.0
$90,071.0
$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
$196,092.0
$208,943.0
$45,672.0
$16,362.0
$5,585.0
$13,335.0
$89,617.0
$11,572.0
$34,454.0
$26,779.0
$21,248.0
$82,481.0
$2,789.0
$96,722.0
$99,511.0
$12,674.0
$193,546.0
$206,220.0
$46,477.0
$18,398.0
$6,027.0
$13,652.0
$90,401.0
$12,256.0
$35,000.0
$17,239.0
$22,223.0
$74,462.0
$2,795.0
$99,476.0
$102,271.0
$13,185.0
$198,706.0
$211,891.0
$805.0
$2,036.0
$442.0
$317.0
$784.0
$684.0
$546.0
($9,540.0)
$975.0
($8,019.0)
$6.0
$2,754.0
$2,760.0
$511.0
$5,160.0
$5,671.0
1236
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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
Compliance Monitoring
Subtotal, Compliance
Enforcement
Environmental Justice
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Enforcement Training
Forensics Support
Subtotal, Enforcement
FY 2007
Actuals
$2,321,877.0
$32,288.4
$32,288.4
$10,372.2
$28,672.1
$39,044.3
$1,960.9
$12,286.2
$11.1
$139.4
$1,487.0
$1,637.5
$911.1
$164,108.2
$8,846.2
$739.2
$7,895.7
$630.7
$2,805.2
$185,936.3
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$2,298,188.0
$38,008.0
$38,008.0
$7,870.0
$26,931.0
$34,801.0
$2,373.0
$7,149.0
$22.0
$144.0
$1,182.0
$1,348.0
$757.0
$161,610.0
$9,843.0
$884.0
$9,167.0
$840.0
$2,310.0
$185,411.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$2,327,962.0
$41,099.0
$41,099.0
$7,747.0
$26,511.0
$34,258.0
$2,342.0
$11,486.0
$22.0
$159.0
$1,165.0
$1,346.0
$745.0
$164,845.0
$9,726.0
$870.0
$9,053.0
$827.0
$3,750.0
$189,816.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$2,338,353.0
$39,483.0
$39,483.0
$8,070.0
$26,931.0
$35,001.0
$2,414.0
$7,164.0
$22.0
$146.0
$1,192.0
$1,360.0
$757.0
$163,678.0
$10,225.0
$0.0
$7,830.0
$858.0
$2,441.0
$185,789.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$10,391.0
($1,616.0)
($1,616.0)
$323.0
$420.0
$743.0
$72.0
($4,322.0)
$0.0
($13.0)
$27.0
$14.0
$12.0
($1,167.0)
$499.0
($870.0)
($1,223.0)
$31.0
($1,309.0)
($4,027.0)
1237
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Homeland Security
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 2007
Actuals
$300.0
$61.8
$1,575.4
$1,637.2
$6,913.3
$8,519.1
$34,885.7
$50,318.1
$636.7
$52,892.0
$137.5
$1,374.2
$1,511.7
$562.3
$15,975.5
$16,537.8
$1,020.6
$826.8
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$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
FY 2008
Enacted
$0.0
$195.0
$1,633.0
$1,828.0
$10,371.0
$5,971.0
$28,287.0
$44,629.0
$585.0
$47,042.0
$154.0
$1,411.0
$1,565.0
$780.0
$16,083.0
$16,863.0
$825.0
$740.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$0.0
$198.0
$1,481.0
$1,679.0
$10,620.0
$9,589.0
$36,467.0
$56,676.0
$1,194.0
$59,549.0
$0.0
$1,433.0
$1,433.0
$801.0
$16,872.0
$17,673.0
$846.0
$631.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$0.0
$3.0
($152.0)
($149.0)
$249.0
$3,618.0
$8,180.0
$12,047.0
$609.0
$12,507.0
($154.0)
$22.0
($132.0)
$21.0
$789.0
$810.0
$21.0
($109.0)
$1,847.4
$1,443.0
$1,565.0
$1,477.0
($88.0)
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
1238
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Rent
Utilities
Security
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
(other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
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 2007
Actuals
$46,016.9
$1,619.3
$4,308.9
$18,319.9
$70,265.0
$2,671.4
$19,129.3
$5,203.0
$20,428.7
$117,697.4
$3,926.4
$23,859.1
$255.1
$24,114.2
$212.3
$222,093.7
$9,101.6
$31,763.5
$659,513.4
$4,967.0
$4,420.0
$931,859.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$44,997.0
$2,466.0
$6,767.0
$20,726.0
$74,956.0
$3,049.0
$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
FY 2008
Enacted
$44,295.0
$2,428.0
$6,661.0
$20,403.0
$73,787.0
$3,001.0
$24,327.0
$4,969.0
$24,008.0
$130,092.0
$3,910.0
$19,768.0
$0.0
$19,768.0
$0.0
$190,011.0
$9,195.0
$31,447.0
$591,078.0
$6,472.0
$0.0
$828,203.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$45,353.0
$3,042.0
$6,524.0
$21,351.0
$76,270.0
$3,116.0
$24,985.0
$5,063.0
$26,102.0
$135,536.0
$3,325.0
$21,021.0
$0.0
$21,021.0
$0.0
$193,853.0
$9,504.0
$31,440.0
$586,120.0
$6,575.0
$0.0
$827,492.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$1,058.0
$614.0
($137.0)
$948.0
$2,483.0
$115.0
$658.0
$94.0
$2,094.0
$5,444.0
($585.0)
$1,253.0
$0.0
$1,253.0
$0.0
$3,842.0
$309.0
($7.0)
($4,958.0)
$103.0
$0.0
($711.0)
$1,352,419.3
($12,286.2)
($29,312.3)
$1,244,706.0
($7,149.0)
($26,126.0)
$1,253,998.0
($11,486.0)
($25,718.0)
$1,264,233.0
($7,164.0)
($26,417.0)
$10,235.0
$4,322.0
($699.0)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
$709.0
$753.0
$44.0
1239
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
(other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
Acquisition Management
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Human Resources Management
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST/UST
EPAct & Related Authorities
Implemention
LUST/ UST (other activities)
Subtotal, LUST/UST
LUST Cooperative Agreements
EPAct & Related Authorities
Implemention
LUST Cooperative Agreements (other
activities)
Subtotal, LUST Cooperative Agreements
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST /
UST)
Total, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
FY 2007
Actuals
$136.5
$717.1
$131.4
$848.5
$223.1
$812.6
$3.0
$1,887.2
$657.0
$0.0
$14,996.1
$14,996.1
$0.0
$65,353.0
$65,353.0
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$177.0
$696.0
$205.0
$901.0
$165.0
$1,102.0
$3.0
$2,171.0
$660.0
$0.0
$10,558.0
$10,558.0
$0.0
$58,207.0
$58,207.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$174.0
$685.0
$202.0
$887.0
$162.0
$1,085.0
$3.0
$2,137.0
$650.0
$1,575.0
$10,393.0
$11,968.0
$28,941.0
$61,237.0
$90,178.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$162.0
$696.0
$206.0
$902.0
$165.0
$1,131.0
$3.0
$2,201.0
$413.0
$0.0
$10,548.0
$10,548.0
$0.0
$58,207.0
$58,207.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($12.0)
$11.0
$4.0
$15.0
$3.0
$46.0
$0.0
$64.0
($237.0)
($1,575.0)
$155.0
($1,420.0)
($28,941.0)
($3,030.0)
($31,971.0)
$80,349.1
$83,673.9
$68,765.0
$72,461.0
$102,146.0
$105,816.0
$68,755.0
$72,284.0
($33,391.0)
($33,532.0)
Oil Spill Response
Compliance
Compliance Assistance and Centers
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
$267.9
$1,661.5
$291.0
$2,065.0
$286.0
$2,072.0
$303.0
$2,233.0
$17.0
$161.0
IT / Data Management / Security
1240
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
IT / Data Management
Oil
Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Rent
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
(other activities)
Subtotal, Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Land Protection
Research: Land Protection and Restoration
Total, Oil Spill Response
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
Brownfields Projects
Clean School Bus Initiative
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
EPAct & Related Authorities
Implemention
CA Emission Reduction Project Grants
Subtotal, Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant
Program
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
Subtotal, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG)
Categorical Grants
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial
Assistance
Categorical Grant: Homeland Security
FY 2007
Actuals
$23.8
$12,890.3
$447.0
$53.4
$500.4
$500.4
$841.3
$16,185.2
$1,039,998.4
$800,695.0
$150,200.2
$34,907.5
$85,865.8
$4,523.6
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$96,452.7
$2,212,643.2
$10,573.4
$50,556.9
$15,830.8
$104,650.9
$3,730.2
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$34.0
$13,499.0
$438.0
$52.0
$490.0
$490.0
$901.0
$17,280.0
$687,554.0
$842,167.0
$0.0
$15,500.0
$89,258.0
$0.0
$35,000.0
$0.0
$35,000.0
$10,000.0
$1,679,479.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$12,850.0
$103,346.0
$4,950.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$33.0
$13,290.0
$431.0
$57.0
$488.0
$488.0
$887.0
$17,056.0
$689,080.0
$829,029.0
$143,723.0
$24,610.0
$93,518.0
$0.0
$49,220.0
$9,844.0
$59,064.0
$19,688.0
$1,858,712.0
$9,746.0
$48,723.0
$9,844.0
$101,734.0
$4,873.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$24.0
$13,927.0
$438.0
$58.0
$496.0
$496.0
$704.0
$17,687.0
$555,000.0
$842,167.0
$0.0
$15,500.0
$93,558.0
$0.0
$49,220.0
$0.0
$49,220.0
$10,000.0
$1,565,445.0
$9,900.0
$49,495.0
$11,000.0
$103,346.0
$4,950.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
($9.0)
$637.0
$7.0
$1.0
$8.0
$8.0
($183.0)
$631.0
($134,080.0)
$13,138.0
($143,723.0)
($9,110.0)
$40.0
$0.0
$0.0
($9,844.0)
($9,844.0)
($9,688.0)
($293,267.0)
$154.0
$772.0
$1,156.0
$1,612.0
$77.0
1241
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Categorical Grant: Lead
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program
Implementation
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)
Monitoring Grants
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control
(Sec. 106) (other activities)
Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Pollution Control
(Sec. 106)
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
Categorical Grant: Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS)
Categorical Grant: Radon
Categorical Grant: Sector Program
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality
Management
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances
Compliance
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality
Management
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance
Program
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection
Control (UIC)
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
Categorical Grant: Wastewater Operator Training
Categorical Grant: Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program
Development
Subtotal, Categorical Grants
FY 2007
Actuals
$22,935.5
$209,889.6
$19,063.6
$13,319.3
$13,246.5
$197,964.3
$211,210.8
$6,121.9
$97,461.9
$7,915.0
$1,360.9
$208,567.3
$4,582.0
$5,710.3
$11,840.5
$61,569.8
$10,150.8
$29,459.4
$828.1
$1,258.1
$16,313.7
$1,124,900.7
FY 2008
Pres Bud
$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
$0.0
$16,830.0
$1,064,971.0
FY 2008
Enacted
$13,352.0
$200,857.0
$18,419.0
$12,768.0
$18,211.0
$199,995.0
$218,206.0
$4,863.0
$97,554.0
$7,948.0
$1,209.0
$216,825.0
$9,844.0
$5,019.0
$10,769.0
$56,037.0
$10,721.0
$2,461.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,567.0
$1,078,339.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
$13,564.0
$184,540.0
$18,711.0
$12,970.0
$18,500.0
$203,164.0
$221,664.0
$4,940.0
$99,100.0
$8,074.0
$1,828.0
$185,580.0
$0.0
$5,099.0
$13,300.0
$57,925.0
$10,891.0
$22,800.0
$0.0
$0.0
$16,830.0
$1,056,507.0
Pres Bud
vs. Enacted
$212.0
($16,317.0)
$292.0
$202.0
$289.0
$3,169.0
$3,458.0
$77.0
$1,546.0
$126.0
$619.0
($31,245.0)
($9,844.0)
$80.0
$2,531.0
$1,888.0
$170.0
$20,339.0
$0.0
$0.0
$263.0
($21,832.0)
Total, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Total, Rescission of Prior Year Funds
TOTAL, EPA
$3,337,543.9 $2,744,450.0 $2,937,051.0 $2,621,952.0 ($315,099.0)
$0.0 ($5,000.0) ($5,000.0) ($10,000.0) ($5,000.0)
$7,911,371.9 $7,199,400.0 $7,472,324.0 $7,142,520.0 ($329,804.0)
1242
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
DISCONTINUED PROGRAMS
1243
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Categorical Grant: Targeted Watersheds
Program Area: Categorical Grants
Goal: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems
Objective(s): Ecosystems
(Dollars in Thousands)
State and Tribal
Assistance Grants
Total Budget Authority /
Obligations
Total Workyears
FY
2007
Actuals
$4,582.0
$4,582.0
0.0
FY
2008
Pres
Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY
2008
Enacted
$9,844.0
$9,844.0
0.0
FY
2009
Pres
Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres Bud
V.
FY 2008
Enacted
($9,844.0)
($9,844.0)
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 2009 Activities and Performance Plan:
There is no request for this program in FY 2009.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• (-$9,844.0) This reduction reflects elimination of congressionally directed funding
provided in the FY 2008 Omnibus.
Statutory Authority:
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006,
Public Law 109-54.
1244
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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
2007
Actuals
$828.1
$828.1
0.0
FY
2008
Pres
Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY
2008
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY
2009
Pres
Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Highlights:
There is no request for this program in FY 2009.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
1245
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 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
2007
Actuals
$1,258.1
$1,258.1
0.0
FY
2008
Pres
Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY
2008
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY
2009
Pres
Bud
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
FY 2009
Pres
Budv.
FY 2008
Enacted
$0.0
$0.0
0.0
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 2009 Activities and Performance Highlights:
There is no request for this program in FY 2009.
FY 2009 Change from FY 2008 Enacted Budget (Dollars in Thousands):
• No change in program funding.
Statutory Authority:
CWA.
1246
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EXPECTED BENEFITS OF THE PRESIDENT'S
E-GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES
Grants.gov
The Grants.gov Initiative benefits EPA and its grant programs by providing a single location to
publish grant opportunities and application packages, and by providing a single site for the grants
community to apply for grants using common forms, processes and systems. EPA believes that
the central site raises the visibility of our grants opportunities to a wider diversity of applicants.
Grants.gov has also allowed EPA to discontinue support for its own electronic grant application
system, saving operational, training, and account management costs.
The grants community benefits from savings in postal costs, paper and envelopes. Applicants
save time in searching for Agency grant opportunities and in learning the application systems of
various agencies. At the request of the state environmental agencies, EPA has begun to offer
Grants.gov application packages for mandatory grants (i.e. Continuing Environmental Program
Grants). States requested that we extend usage to mandatory programs to streamline their
application process.
During FY07 EPA posted 173 grant opportunities on Grants.gov Find and linked 100% of those
competitive opportunities to electronic application packages on Apply. EPA received 2,942
applications through Grants.gov in 2007, a 28% increase over the number of applications
received in 2007.
Fiscal Account Code EPA
Year Contribution
(in thousands)
2008 020-00-04-00-04-1316-24- $536.2
402-16
2009 020-00-04-00-04-1316-24 $517.7
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 some 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, which allows 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 EPA's acquisition systems to identify vendors that are
debarred from receiving contract awards.
1247
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
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 Account Code EPA Service Fee
Year (in thousands)
2008 020-00-01-16-04-0230-24 $127.278
2009 020-00-01-16-04-0230-24 $151.282
Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) Grants and Loans
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) requires the agencies to
unambiguously identify contract, grant, and loan recipients and determine parent/child
relationship, address information, etc. The FFATA taskforce determined that using both the Dun
and Bradstreet (D&B) DUNS Number (standard identifier for all business lines) and Central
Contractor Registration (CCR), the single point of entry for data collection and dissemination, is
the most appropriate way to accomplish this. This fee will pay for EPA's use of
this service in the course of reporting grants and/or loans.
Fiscal Account Code EPA Service
Year Fee (in
thousands)
2008 020-00-01-16-02-0231-24 $89.9
2009 020-00-01-16-02-0231-24 $89.9
Note: FY 2008 amount is for Agency contribution and FY 2009 amount is for service fee.
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 April 2008.
This initiative will benefit the Agency by reducing contract support costs for file room
maintenance and improve customer service for employees and productivity for FIR specialists.
The Agency plans to reduce the Headquarters OFF contract once the eOPF is implemented. The
contract will be evaluated one year from the actual eOPF deployment to determine if additional
cost reductions are feasible or if the contract could be eliminated. In addition, customer service
will improve for employees since they will have 24/7 access to view and print their official
1248
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
personnel documents and HR specialists will no longer be required to manually file, retrieve or
mail personnel actions to employees thus improving productivity.
EPA benefits from EHRI in FY09 are anticipated to be the same as those described for FY08.
Fiscal Account Code EPA Service
Year Fee (in
thousands)
2008 020-00-01-16-01- $406.0
1219-21
2009 020-00-01-16-01- $474.2
1219-21
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 the
Agency 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 5 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 FY09 are anticipated to be the same as those
described for FY08.
Fiscal Account Code EPA Service Fee
Year (in thousands)
2008 020-00-01-16-04- $102.2
0010-24
2009 020-00-01-16-04- $106.3
0010-24
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.
1249
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
EPA benefits from eTraining in FY09 are anticipated to be the same as those described for
FY08.
Fiscal Account Code EPA Service Fee (in
Year thousands)
2008 020-00-01-16-04-1200-24- $80.0
403-250
2009 020-00-01-16-1217-24 $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 departments and agencies to work
more effectively, and it provides managers and executives across the Federal Government
improved means to meet strategic objectives. EPA benefits by supporting an effective program
management activity which will deliver more tangible results in 2009 and beyond.
Fiscal Account Code EPA
Year Contribution (in
thousands)
2008 020-00-01-16-04-1200-24-403- $65.217
250
2009 020-00-01-16-04-1200-24 $65.217
Grants Management LoB
EPA manages 6,288 grant awards equaling approximately $4.1 billion. EPA anticipates the key
benefit will be having a centralized location to download all applications, make awards, and
track awards to closeout. Automated business processes available through consortium service
providers will decrease agency reliance on manual and paper-based processing. Consortium lead
agencies will spread operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and development, modernization,
and enhancement (DME) costs across agencies, decreasing the burden that any one agency must
bear.
GM LoB will lead to a reduction in the number of systems of record for grants data across EPA
and the government and the development of common reporting standards, improving EPA's
ability to provide agency- and government-wide reports on grant activities and results.
Migrating to a consortium lead agency will help EPA comply with the Federal Financial
Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 and the Federal Funding Accountability and
Transparency Act of 2006.
Service to constituents will be improved through the standardization and streamlining of
government-wide grants business processes. The public will save time a result of quicker
notification and faster payments due to an automated system for grants processing. Furthermore,
GM LoB will minimize complex and varying agency-specific requirements and increase grantee
1250
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
ease of use on Federal grants management systems. Constituents will benefit as they will have
fewer unique agency systems and processes to learn; grantees' ability to learn how to use the
system will be improved and reliance on call center technical support will be reduced.
Consortium lead agencies will also provide grantees with online access to standard post-award
reports, decreasing the number of unique agency-specific reporting requirements.
Fiscal Account Code EPA
Year Contributio
n (in
thousands)
2008 020-00-04-00-04-1300-24- $59.3
108-025
2009 020-00-04-00-04-1300-24 $59.3
Geospatial LoB
The Geospatial Line of Business (GeoLoB) will reduce EPA costs and improve our operations in
several areas. The investment in FY08 and FY09 will provide the necessary planning and
coordination to begin providing significant benefits to EPA in FY10 and beyond in the following
ways:
EPA's mission requires the use of a broad range of data on places (e.g. facilities, roads, waste
sites, etc.) and geographic features (wetlands, sols, hydrography, etc) to support our decision
making processes. OMB circular A-16 identified over 30 critical datasets, many of which are
needed to support environmental decisions. The GeoLoB Program Management Office,
established in late FY07, will help EPA by providing much needed planning and coordination
across the A-16 data stewards to complete these critical data sets.
EPA is moving towards deployment of a service-oriented architecture that will facilitate flexible
access to data to support a variety of business applications. Implementing a Service Oriented
Architecture (SOA) requires the establishment of common standards and policies. The GeoLoB
will advance the establishment of a 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 saved approximately $2 million per year by consolidating
procurements for data and tools into multi-year enterprise licenses. The GeoLoB will reduce
costs by providing an opportunity for EPA and other agencies to share approaches on
procurement consolidation that other agencies can follow. In FY08, EPA is leading a GeoLoB
initiative to explore opportunities for Federal-wide acquisition of key geospatial software and
data.
EPA benefits from Geospatial LoB in FY09 are anticipated to be the same as those described for
FY08.
1251
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Fiscal Account Code EPA
Year Contributio
n (in
thousands)
2008 020-00-01-16-04- $43.2
3100-24
2009 020-00-01-16-04- $42.0
3100-24
eRulemaking
The eRulemaking program is designed to enhance public access and participation in the
regulatory process through electronic systems; reduce burden for citizens and businesses in
finding relevant regulations and commenting on proposed rulemaking actions; consolidate
redundant docket systems; and improve agency regulatory processes and the timeliness of
regulatory decisions.
The Federal Docket Management System, which was launched under eRulemaking, has
simplified the public's participation in the rulemaking process and made EPA's rulemaking
business processes more accessible as well as transparent. FDMS provides EPA's 1,430
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 regulatory and non-regulatory documents in Regulations.gov for public viewing,
downloading, and commenting. From January through October 2007, Regulations.gov posted
1,374 Federal Register notices, 1,171 rules and proposed rules, and 24,461 public submissions.
During the same time-frame, EPA posted 13,429 supporting and related materials.
Fiscal Account Code EPA Service
Year Fee (in
thousands)
2008 020-00-01-16-04-0060-24- $535.0
306-113
2009 020-00-01016-04-0060-24 $1,531.1
E-Authentication
Public trust in the security of information exchanged over the Internet plays a vital role in the
success of E-Gov initiatives. 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 government-wide use. This
will help build the trust that must be an inherent part of every online exchange between citizens
and government.
The only 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, and our current plan is to offer production Level 3 E-
Authentication for the end-users of the one system that currently is on track to implement PKI-
1252
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
based digital signatures. This implementation will achieve production Level 3 E-Authentication
by upgrading PKI certificate management practices and validation technologies already available
within the CDX-Web environment so that they meet the requirements for E-Authentication
participation. As currently planned, the implementation will provide E-Authentication services
for 1,000 to 2,000 end-users.
The initiative benefits EPA by providing expertise, guidance, and documentation, including
project planning and reporting templates, to enable EPA to achieve production implementation
of E-Authentication for its CDX-Web by the end of Q2 FY08. EPA is taking advantage of the
availability of PKI certificates provided through the EPA Authentication Federation to offer
production level 3 E-Authentication service.
EPA benefits from E-Authentication in FY09 are anticipated to be similar to those described for
FY08.
Fiscal Account Code EPA Service
Year Fee (in
thousands)
2008 020-00-01-16-03-0250- $104.1
24
2009 020-00-01-16-03-0250- $201.9
24
Business Gateway
By creating a single portal for business information, such as the e-Forms catalog, Business
Gateway directly benefits EPA's regulated communities, many of whom are subject to complex
regulatory requirements across multiple agencies. The Business Gateway initiative benefits EPA
by supporting the Agency's emphasis on the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
EPA has over 100 initiatives, activities, and services directed at small business needs.
Business.gov continues to provide a one-stop compliance tool enabling small and emerging
businesses access to compliance information, forms and tools across the Federal Government.
Business Gateway supports EPA's small business activities function by providing the following
benefits:
• Providing a single point of access for electronic regulatory forms;
• Providing "plain English" compliance guidance, fact sheets and links to
checklists for small businesses; and
• Maintaining an extensive Web site with numerous links to other internal and
external assistance sources.
EPA anticipates similar benefits from Business Gateway in 2009 as stated for 2008.
Fiscal Account Code EPA
Year Contributio
n (in
thousands)
2008 020-00-01-16-04-0100-24 $120.0
2009 020-00-01-16-04-0100-24 $209.3
1253
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
E-Travel
E-Travel is designed to provide EPA more efficient and effective travel management services,
with cost savings from cross-government purchasing agreements and improved functionality
through streamlined travel policies and processes, strict security and privacy controls, and
enhanced agency oversight and audit capabilities. EPA employees also will benefit from the
integrated travel planning provided through E-Travel. EPA and GSA have agreed to a
September 2008 GovTrip implementation date.
Fiscal Account Code EPA
Year Service
Fee (in
thousands)
2008 020-00-01-01-03-0221-24 $1,088.7
2009 020-00-01-01-03-0221-24 $1,327.9
ITLoB
The initiative benefits EPA through improved IT performance, greater efficiencies in IT
infrastructure investments, and consistency and standardization of infrastructure platforms. The
IT LoB will provide EPA with best practice data and industry-wide performance metrics to
validate existing performance.
EPA stands to benefit from all three IT Infrastructure areas of concentration (End User Systems
and Support, Mainframes and Servers Systems and Support, and Telecommunications Systems
and Support). In addition, EPA should benefit from information and, potentially, pricing
previously available to only larger agencies.
Fiscal Account Code EPA
Year Contribution
(in thousands)
2008 020-00-02-00-04-3300-24 $20.0
2009 020-00-02-00-04-3300-24 $0.0
Financial Management Line of Business
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 FY06, 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 achieve operational savings in future years because of the use of the shared
service provider for operations and maintenance of the new system.
1254
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2009 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Fiscal Account Code EPA Contribution (in
Year thousands)
2008 020-00-01 -01 -04-1100- $45.0
24
2009 020-00-01 -01 -04-1100- $44.4
24
Budget Formulation and Execution (BFE) LoB
The Budget Formulation and Execution Lines of Business (BFE LoB) allows EPA and other
agencies to access budget-related benefits and services and optionally implement LoB sponsored
tools and services.
EPA has benefited from the BFE LoB in the following ways:
• Through on-going agency presentations, the LoB shares valuable information on what
has/hasn't worked (best/worst practices) on the use of different budget systems and
software.
• Through the use of a collaboration effort, a government-wide/government only
capability for electronic collaboration (Wiki) has been established where a Budget
Community website allows EPA to share budget information with OMB (and other
federal agencies) in a more efficient and effective manner.
• The LoB is working on giving EPA and other agencies the capability to have secure,
virtual on-line meetings where participants can not only hear what's been said by
conference calling into the meeting, but also view budget-related presentations
directly from their workspace.
• The LoB has provided EPA and other agencies with Budget Execution and Financial
Management Integration tools, such as fundamental budget documents, that provide
agencies a better understanding of the relationship and tie-in between the budget
process and the financial management process.
• The LoB has provided budget-related training to EPA budget employees on OMB's
MAX budget system, and on Treasury's FACTS II statements and how it ties to the
budget process.
• EPA will also benefit from the LoB's on-going effort to develop a government-wide
"core competencies" budget training and certification program where employees
entering the field of budget will be required to complete essential basic federal
budgeting training; thus providing EPA with a better qualified budget analysts.
Fiscal Account Code EPA Contribution (in
Year thousands)
2008 $110.Oof in-kind services
2009 $95. Oof in-kind services
1255
-------
VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2009 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 2009 Performance Measures:
-------
• Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of
fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) in all monitored counties from 2003 baseline
(PART measure)
• Cumulative percent reduction in population-weighted ambient concentration of
ozone in monitored counties from 2003 baseline (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).
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Cumulative percent reduction in the number of days to process SIP revisions
weighted by complexity [PART efficiency measure].
Performance Databases: None
-------
Data Sources: Data are provided by EPA's regional offices.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: Baseline for processing SIP revisions is 420 days
(The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides 60 days for completeness + 360 days for technical review)
Each Region will maintain a SIP tracking system. It will include the date of receipt, interim
dates and the final Regional Administrator's signature for each SIP submission. At the end of
the fiscal year, each Region will sum the total allowable SIP processing days and the total actual
SIP processing days for SIP revisions processed to final action during the fiscal year. Each
Region will then submit the totals to the National SIP processing work group chair who will then
divide the total actual processing days by the total allowable processing days and calculate the
percent difference from base year processing time.
The SIP revisions are weighted by complexity because it takes some areas longer than others to
reach attainment.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA regional staff ensure the number of SIP revisions finalized is equal
to or less than the total number of SIP revisions received.
Data Quality Review: Same as QA/QC procedures
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: There is no estimate on the number of errors that could have been made during
data entry.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: None.
FY 2009 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 2009 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 2009 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:
-------
reference or equivalent requirements; 4) acceptable data validation and record keeping
procedures must be followed; and 5) data from SLAMS must be summarized and reported
annually to EPA. Finally, there are system audits that regularly review the overall air quality data
collection activity for any needed changes or corrections. Further information available on the
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/programs/namslam.html and through United States
EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook (EPA-454/R-98-004 Section 15)
PMC: The QA/QC procedures at each State, local, Tribal, or Federal agency are the same as
documented above. Because the DMC handles real-time data, additional QA/QC data checks are
built into the data flow process to further guard against erroneous values being passed through
the system. Data in the DMC are not considered final and are not used for any regulatory
purpose. Data in the AQS system are the official values used for regulatory analyses.
Data Quality Review:
AQS: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal audits
are regularly conducted.
DMC: No external audits have been done in the last 3 years. However, internal audits
are regularly conducted and data are routinely processed by external users where
applicable.
Data Limitations:
AQS: None known
DMC: None known
Error Estimate: At this time it is not possible to develop an error estimate. There is still too
much uncertainty in the projections and near term variations in air quality (due to meteorological
conditions for example).
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.
DMC: 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.
10
-------
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 2009 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, 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
11
-------
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
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.
12
-------
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 2009 Performance Measures:
• Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for cancer risk)
emissions of air toxics from 2003 baseline (PART measure)
• Cumulative percentage reduction in tons of toxicity-weighted (for noncancer risk)
emissions of air toxics from 2003 baseline (PART measure)
Performance Databases:
• National Emissions Inventory (NET) 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
13
-------
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.htmltfl999.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: As the NEI is only developed every three years, EPA
utilizes an emissions modeling system to project inventories for "off-years" and to project the
inventory into the future. This model, the EMS-HAP (Emissions Modeling System for
Hazardous Air Pollutants), can project future emissions, by adjusting stationary source emission
data to account for growth and emission reductions resulting from emission reduction scenarios
such as the implementation of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards.
Once the EMS-HAP process has been performed, the EPA would tox-weight the inventory by
"weighting" the emissions for each pollutant with the appropriate health risk criteria. This would
be accomplished through a multi-step process. Initially, pollutant by pollutant values would be
obtained from the NEI for the current year and the baseline year (1990/93). Conversion of actual
tons for each pollutant for the current year and the baseline year to "toxicity-weighted" tons
would be accomplished by multiplying the appropriate values from the health criteria database
such as the unit risk estimate (URE) or lifetime cancer risk (defined at
14
-------
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/qaaugmementati onmemo99nei_60603.pdf
The NTI database contains data fields that indicate if a field has been augmented and identifies
the augmentation method. After performing the content analysis, the EPA contacts data
providers to reconcile potential errors. The draft NTI is posted for external review and includes
a README file, with instructions on review of data and submission of revisions, state-by-state
modeling files with all modeled data fields, and summary files to assist in the review of the data.
One of the summary files includes a comparison of point source data submitted by different
organizations. During the external review of the data, state and local agencies, Tribes, and
industry provide external QA of the inventory. The EPA evaluates proposed revisions from
external reviewers and prepares memos for individual reviewers documenting incorporation of
revisions and explanations if revisions were not incorporated. All revisions are tracked in the
database with the source of original data and sources of subsequent revision.
The external QA and the internal QC of the inventory have resulted in significant changes in the
initial emission estimates, as seen by comparison of the initial draft NEI for HAPs and its final
version. For more information on QA/QC of the NEI for HAPs, please refer to the following
15
-------
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
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
16
-------
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 at www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040331-2004-p-00012.pdf). The report stated
that although the methods used have improved substantially, unvalidated assumptions and other
limitations underlying the NTI continue to impact its use as a GPRA performance measure. As a
result of this evaluation and the OIG recommendations for improvement, EPA prepared an action
plan and is looking at ways to improve the accuracy and reliability of the data. EPA will meet
bi-annually with OIG to report on its progress in completing the activities as outlined in the
action plan.
While the Agency has made every effort to utilize the best available science in selecting
appropriate health criteria data for toxicity-weighting calculations there are inherent limitations
and errors (uncertainties) associated with this type of data. While it is not practical to expose
humans to chemicals at target doses and observe subsequent health implications over long
periods of time, most of the agencies health criteria is derived from response models and
laboratory experiments involving animals. The parameter used to convert from exposure to
cancer risk (i.e. the Unit Risk Estimate or URE) is based on default science policy processes used
routinely in EPA assessments. First, some air toxics are known to be carcinogens in animals but
lack data in humans. These have been assumed to be human carcinogens. Second, all the air
toxics in this assessment were assumed to have linear relationships between exposure and the
probability of cancer (i.e. effects at low exposures were extrapolated from higher, measurable,
exposures by a straight line). Third, the URE used for some air toxics compounds represents a
17
-------
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
Contents: Modeling data files for each state
Summary data files for nation
Documentation
README file
Audience: individuals who want full access to NTI files
NEON: http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/Neon/
Available inventories: 1996 NTI and 1999 NEI for HAPs
18
-------
Contents: Summary data files
Audience: EPA staff
CHIEF: 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
Audience: 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 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of additional homes (new and existing) with radon reducing features
(PART measure)
• Total cost (public and private) per future premature lung cancer death prevented
through lowered radon exposure (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Annual industry survey data of home builders provided by the
National Association of Home Builders and internal database of fan sales.
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
19
-------
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.
Radon fan manufacturers report fan sales to the Agency. EPA assumes one fan per radon
mitigated home, and a fan life of 10 years, and then multiplies the assumed number of working
fans by the assumed average of 2.67 people per household.
To estimate the reduced number of lung cancer deaths resulting from lowered radon exposure,
EPA applies risk reduction estimates from its 2003 radon risk assessment to the number of
existing homes mitigated for elevated radon levels and the number of new homes built with
radon resistant new construction. Cost estimate includes both public and private sector costs,
using EPA's 2003 estimate as a baseline.
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.
This measure is a combination of data that includes additional number of homes built with radon
resistant new construction (RRNC), reported by industry on an annual basis, as well as additional
radon mitigations which are estimated from annual radon fan sales.
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
20
-------
have been established, which include QA/QC by the vendor that is utilized for key entry of data.
Because fan sales data are obtained from an external organization, EPA relies on the business
practices of radon fan manufacturers for reporting the data.
Data Quality Review: Because data are obtained from an external organization, Data Quality
Review procedures are not entirely known. NAHB Research Center indicates that each survey is
manually reviewed, a process that requires several months to complete. The review includes
data quality checks to ensure that the respondents understood the survey questions and answered
the questions appropriately. NAHB Research Center also applies checks for open-ended
questions to verify the appropriateness of the answers. In some cases, where open-ended
questions request numerical information, the data are capped between the upper and lower three
percent of the values provided in the survey responses. Also, a quality review of each year's
draft report from NAHB Research Center is conducted by the EPA project officer. Fan sales
data are obtained from an external organization and EPA reviews the data to ascertain their
reliability and discusses any irregularities with the relevant manufacturer.
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.
Reporting by radon fan manufacturers is voluntary and may underestimate the number of radon
fans sold. Nevertheless, these are the best available data to determine the number of homes
mitigated. There are other methods to mitigate radon including: passive mitigation techniques of
sealing holes and cracks in floors and foundation walls, installing sealed covers over sump pits,
installing one-way drain valves in untrapped drains, and installing static venting and ground
covers in areas like crawl spaces. Because there are no data on the occurrence of these methods,
there is again the possibility that the number of radon mitigated homes has been underestimated.
No radon vent fan manufacturer, vent fan motor maker or distributor is required to report to
EPA; they provide data/information voluntarily to EPA. There are only four (4) radon vent fan
manufacturers of any significance; one of these accounts for an estimated 70% of the market.
Radon vent fans are unlikely to be used for non-radon applications. However, vent fans typically
used for non-radon applications are perhaps being installed as substitutes for radon vent fans in
21
-------
some instances; estimated to be less than 1% of the total market. Ascertaining the actual number
of radon vent fans used for other applications, and the number of non-radon fans being
substituted in radon applications, would be difficult and expensive at this time relative to the
benefit of having such data.
Error Estimate: 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 7/25/2007 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.
See http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/pubs/index.html last accessed 7/25/2007 for National
performance/progress reporting (National Radon Results: 1985-to 2003) on radon, measurement,
mitigation and radon-resistant new construction.
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of people taking all essential actions to reduce exposure to indoor
environmental asthma triggers (PART measure)
• Annual cost to EPA per person with asthma taking all essential actions to reduce
exposure to indoor environmental asthma triggers (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: The National Survey on Environmental Management of Asthma and
Children's Exposure to ETS (NSEMA) provides information about the measures taken by people
with asthma, and parents of children with asthma, to minimize exposure to indoor environmental
asthma triggers, including environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Additional information about
asthma morbidity and mortality in the US is obtained from surveys conducted by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including the National Health Interview Survey, the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
Survey. 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/04_chtbk.pdf last accessed 7/25/2007.
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. In addition to
NSEMA, information about ETS is obtained periodically from the CDC studies cited above
Data Source: The NSEMA (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 7/25/2007). Data on annual expenditures for health and lost
productivity due to asthma are obtained from the NHLBI Chartbook.
22
-------
(www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/docs/04_chtbk.pdf. last accessed 7/25/2007). EPA will gather
asthma trigger data through questions that are being integrated into a CDC survey. Essential
actions address mold, dust mites, secondhand smoke, cockroaches, pets, nitrogen dioxide, and
chemical irritants. Cost includes EPA full cost of implementing the asthma program.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: End-of-year performance for the asthma program is a
best professional estimate using all data sources (including information on annual measures on
partner performance and advertising awareness outlined below). 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 a national survey instrument in 2009. EPA is collaborating with CDC to
integrate questions on environmental management of asthma into an existing CDC national
survey mechanism to provide performance results data in the future. Also, data provided for the
annual measures are used to support progress towards the long term performance measure.
The NSEMA (OMB control number 2060-0490) 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.
QA/QC Procedures: The NSEMA was designed in accordance with approved Agency
procedures. Additional information is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/icr/players.html. 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: 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.
23
-------
Error Estimate: In 2003 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: EPA is collaborating with CDC to integrate questions on
environmental management of asthma into an existing CDC national survey mechanism to
provide performance results data in the future. The 2003 NSEMA estimates, and the integration
of the CDC survey population, will provide consistent tracking measures at a reduced cost, while
reducing the burden to the public. This collaboration will improve national asthma surveillance
efforts.
References:
Asthma
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(www.cdc.gov/nchs/ last accessed 7/25/2007)
EPA Indoor Environments Division (www.epa.gov/iaq/ last accessed 7/25/2007)
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 7/25/2007 )
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/index.htm last accessed 7/25/2007),
US Surgeon General's report on tobacco (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/index.htm/ last
accessed 7/25/2007),
National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Tobacco Monograph Series
(http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/ last accessed 7/25/2007),
NCI funded Tobacco Use Supplement portion of the US Census Bureau's Current Population
Survey (http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/studies/tus-cps/ last accessed 7/25/2007),
Healthy People 2010 (http://www.healthypeople.gov/ last accessed 7/25/2007).
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
24
-------
• Additional health care professionals trained annually by EPA and its partners on
the environmental management of asthma triggers (PART measure)
Performance Database: The performance database consists of quarterly Partner status reports
used to document the outcomes of individual projects.
Data Source: Partner status reports are generated by those organizations receiving funding from
EPA and are maintained by individual EPA Project Officers.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: On an annual basis, EPA requires (programmatic terms
and conditions of the award) all funded organizations to provide reports identifying how many
health care professionals are educated about indoor asthma triggers.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that organizations report data as accurately and completely
as possible; site-visits are conducted by EPA project officers.
Data Quality Review: Project officers review data quality.
Data Limitations: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: EPA is exploring the development of a centralized data base.
References: N/A
FY 2009 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.
25
-------
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
7/25/07.
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Estimated annual number of schools establishing Indoor Air Quality programs
based on EPA's Tools for Schools guidance (PART measure)
• Total number of schools implementing an effective Indoor Air Quality plan (PART
measure)
• Average cost to EPA per student per year in a school that is implementing an indoor
air quality plan. (PART efficiency 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. The SHPSS survey is conducted at 6 year intervals so the next nationally
representative data would be collected in 2012 and would measure progress against the long term
2012 program goal.
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.
On a 6 year basis, EPA collaborates with CDC to determine the number of schools implementing
an IAQ plan. Effectiveness is defined as a plan that is consistent with EPA's Tool for Schools
guidance and scores a 70 or higher on EPA's IAQ management index.
Total Number of students is derived from the number of schools multiplied by the nationwide
average of 525 students, faculty and staff. Effectiveness is defined as a plan that is consistent
with EPA's Tool for Schools guidance and scores a 70 or higher on EPA's indoor air quality
(IAQ) management index. Cost includes EPA full cost of implementing IAQ programs.
26
-------
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. Key portions of EPA's 2006 survey will be included
as part of CDC's 2006 School Health Policies and Programs Study, which is conducted every six
years.
QA/QC Procedures: It is assumed that partner organizations report data as accurately and
completely as possible; site visits and regular communication with grantees are conducted by
EPA projects officers.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the data from all sources in the performance database to
ascertain reliability and to resolve any discrepancies.
Data Limitations: The primary limitation associated with Cooperative Agreement Partner status
reporting is the error introduced as a result of self-reporting.
Error Estimate: Not relevant for this year.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Prior to the 2002 survey, EPA tracked the number of schools
receiving the TfS guidance and estimated the population of the school to determine the number
of students/staff experiencing improved indoor air quality. The survey was administered to
establish a baseline for schools implementing IAQ management practices. EPA queried a
statistically representative sample of schools to estimate the number of schools that have actually
adopted and implemented good IAQ management practices consistent with the TfS guidance.
EPA has integrated key portions of the 2002 survey into 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 7/26/2007. See also Indoor Air Quality Tools for
Schools Kit (402-K-95-001) at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools last accessed 7/26/2007 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 2009 Performance Measure:
27
-------
• 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
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.
28
-------
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of most populous U.S. cities with a RadNet ambient radiation air
monitoring system, which will provide data to assist in protective action
determinations. (PART measure)
Performance Database: EPA database of RadNet program expansion. Data from the near real
time gamma component of the ambient air radiation monitoring system, RadNet, will be stored
in the EPA RadNet database at the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
(NAREL) in Montgomery, AL.
Data Source: Data on the number and location of monitors will be stored in the NAREL RadNet
program expansion database; U.S. Census Bureau population data will be used to calculate 100
most populous cities; environmental data from the RadNet system will be stored in the NAREL
RadNet database.
Methods and Assumptions: These monitors will provide data on ambient environmental levels
of radiation on an ongoing basis and in the event of a radioactive contamination event.
Suitability: This measure was selected to show the implementation of the fixed monitoring
network and the benefit to population. Over time, once the system is fully implemented, this
measure will become obsolete.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow Agency
guidelines and be consistent with the RadNet Quality Assurance Project Plan once it is complete
(scheduled to be finalized in early 2008). Laboratory analyses of air filters and other media, as
well as all calibrations, are closely controlled in compliance with the NAREL Quality
Management Plan and applicable Standard Operating Procedures (EPA Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air (ORIA), National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory Quality Management
Plan Revision 1, dated March 15, 2001 and reaffirmed August 23, 2006).
Data Quality Review: Science Advisory Review Board reviewed and analyzed the RadNet
system and presented their suggestions for the expansion and upgrade of the system. Advice on
siting of the monitors was presented to EPA. (EPA SAB Report, Review of 2005 Agency Draft
entitled "Expansion and Upgrade of the RadNet Air Monitoring Network, Vol. 1 & 2, Concept
29
-------
and Plan," Quality Review Draft, 8/17/06)
http://epa.gov/sab/pdf/radnet_fmal_qual_rev_draft_08-17-06.pdf (504k pdf)
Data Limitations: N/A.
Error Estimate: It is not anticipated that significant error will occur in tracking the number of
monitors placed in cities.
New/Improved Data or Systems: None planned at this time.
References: For more information about the system, see: www.epa.gov/narel/radnet \
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Level of readiness of radiation program personnel and assets to support federal
radiological emergency response and recovery operations (measured as
percentage of radiation response team members and assets that meet scenario-
based response criteria). (PART measure)
Performance Database: Internal Database
Data Source: Annual measurement of readiness based on an evaluation of the emergency
response assets.
Methods and Assumptions: EPA developed standardized criteria based on the functional
requirements identified in the National Response Plan's Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex
and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). A baseline
analysis for the Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT) was performed in 2005, for
EAP Headquarters and is based on the effectiveness of the RERT during incidents and national
exercises.
Suitability: This measure and its criteria were developed to compliment Department of
Homeland Security criteria as well as those of the EPA Core Emergency Response and Removal
(Core ER) program evaluation measures.
QA/QC Procedures: An evaluation panel consisting of three representatives from the
Radiological Emergency Response Team (RERT), one from each Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air (ORIA) Laboratory and one from ORIA Headquarters, and ORIA management
representatives (including at least one representative from outside the ORIA Radiological
Emergency Response Program) annually perform a critical evaluation of ORIA's Radiological
Emergency Response Program's capabilities versus the standardized criteria, resulting in an
overall annual percentage score, as well as component percentage scores. Representatives will
not be involved in the evaluation of their own location. Members are chosen based on
volunteerism and by lottery on an annual basis. The Panel is chaired by the non-RERT
management representative
30
-------
Data Quality Review: Evaluation information is provided to the ORIA Office Director annually
for use in evaluating progress. Data quality is certified by the Laboratory Directors at the
Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory and the National Air and Radiation
Environmental Laboratory as well as by the Division Director of the Radiation Protection
Division.
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: None known
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Radiological Emergency Response Measurement Implementation Plan: Long-
Term Outcome Performance Measure, Readiness. FY 2007 Radiation PART Assessment (Draft:
7/25/2007)
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Level of readiness of national environmental radiological laboratory capacity
(measured as percentage of laboratories adhering to EPA quality criteria for
emergency response and recovery decisions). (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Internal Database.
Data Source: EPA will conduct laboratory assessments between years 2006 to 2011 to
determine commercial, state and federal laboratory capability, capacity, and qualifications. This
is a phased-in approach and initial work has already begun. In 2007, EPA has conducted an
initial capacity and capability survey of select commercial radiation laboratories.
Methods and Assumptions: The percentage laboratory capacity that is needed is based on the
Homeland Security Council Radiological Attack, Radiological Dispersal Device Scenario.
Similarly, radiological scenario analytical needs will be based on the Homeland Security Council
Radiological Dispersion Device (ROD) Scenario. Laboratory capacity determines, for example,
equipment needs, whereas, analytical needs measurement determines expert modeling capability,
etc. Both are important factors in determining level of readiness. Increased laboratory capacity
for those laboratories assisted through EPA guidance and training will be calculated.
Suitability: This measure is critical to identifying level of readiness relative to radiological
laboratory capacity in the event of an incident of national significance.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow Agency
guidelines and be consistent with EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Quality
Management Plan Revision, dated October 2004.
-------
Data Quality Review: Information gained from the laboratory assessments with respect to
capacity and ability to meet method validation protocols will be used to determine laboratory
capacity, which adheres to EPA quality criteria.
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Radiological Emergency Response Measurement Implementation Plan: Long-
Term Outcome Performance Measure, Readiness. FY 2007 Radiation PART Assessment (Draft:
7/25/2007)
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Average time of availability of quality assured ambient radiation air monitoring
data during an emergency. (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Data from the near real-time gamma component RadNet will be stored
in an internal EPA database at the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
(NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama.
Data Source: The baseline for this measure is the current calculated response time which is
based on shipment time and laboratory analysis time. As real-time monitors are put into service,
the efficiency of the system will increase. Near real-time units will have reliable data in hours
compared to days for conventional monitors, which are dependent on shipment and analysis time
of samples.
Methods and Assumptions: The time between data collection at the monitoring sites and
availability of data for release by EPA will be determined annually for the system as a whole,
including existing (legacy) monitors and new near real-time monitors. The efficiency data will be
compiled from existing and ongoing operational records of RadNet.
The monitoring system efficiency is based on two assumptions: (1) 43 conventional (non-real-
time) monitoring stations exist in the system before the addition of any real-time monitors, and
(2) a baseline of two and one-half days (60 hours) are required for data to become available
(during emergency conditions) from the 43 non-real-time monitors. The initial interval of 2.5
days assumes the network is in alert status when time counting begins. Six (6) hours is the time
required for data to become available from the near real-time monitors.
Suitability: This measure provides key data regarding availability of data and operational
readiness of the nationwide RadNet ambient radiation monitoring network.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow Agency
guidelines and be consistent with the RadNet Quality Assurance Project Plan once it is complete
32
-------
(scheduled to be finalized in early 2008). Laboratory analyses of air filters and other media, as
well as all calibrations, are closely controlled in compliance with the NAREL Quality
Management Plan and applicable Standard Operating Procedures (EPA Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air, National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory Quality Management Plan
Revision 1, dated March 15, 2001 and reaffirmed August 23, 2006).
Data Quality Review: The database will screen all incoming data from the monitoring systems
for abnormalities as an indicator of either a contamination event or an instrument malfunction.
Data will be held in a secure portion of the database until verified by trained personnel. Copies
of quality assurance and quality control testing will also be maintained to assure the quality of
the data.
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: This measure will use data from the enhanced RadNet
ambient air radiation monitoring system.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Time to approve site changes affecting waste characterization at DOE waste
generator sites to ensure safe disposal of transuranic radioactive waste at WIPP
Performance Database: Internal Database
Data Source: EPA has established a range of baseline data from existing records that indicate
the date(s) of the EPA site inspection and the EPA approval date for waste streams and waste
characterization equipment. EPA will measure the time between the DOE request for
approval/notification of change (or the date of the inspection, if applicable) to the date of EPA
approval, disapproval or concurrence of the change.
Methods and Assumptions: Under the new requirements of 40 CFR Part 194.8, EPA will
perform a baseline inspection of each DOE waste generator site. If all requirements are met, EPA
will approve the site's waste characterization program and assign tiers, based on abilities
demonstrated during the baseline inspection. DOE will inform EPA of changes in the waste
characterization program that can affect the quality of the data required by EPA to ensure the
disposal regulations are met. The tiering protocol, which applies to waste streams, equipment,
and procedures, will require DOE to either notify EPA of changes to the waste characterization
program prior to implementation of the change (Tier 1) or to notify EPA of the changes upon
implementation (Tier 2). For Tier 1 changes, EPA may request additional information or conduct
an inspection prior to issuing an approval.
EPA assumes that adequate resources commensurate with the workload (which varies by up to 3
fold on an annual basis) are available and that sufficiently qualified EPA personnel and
contractor consultants are available.
33
-------
Suitability: This measure provides key information about the time required for EPA to approve
DOE's request to dispose of transuranic waste at the WIPP site.
QA/QC Procedures: Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures will follow Agency
guidelines and be consistent with EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Quality Management
Plan Revision, dated October 2004.
Data Quality Review: N/A
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: The Department of Energy National TRU Waste Management Plan Quarterly
Supplement http://www.wipp.energy.gov/shipments.htm (last accessed 8/9/2007) contains
information on the volumes of waste that are received at the DOE WIPP.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Population covered by Radiation Protection Program monitors per million
dollars invested. (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: EPA database of RadNet program expansion. The percent of the U.S.
population covered is dependent on the number of monitors deployed and includes everyone in
the continental U.S. within 25 miles of an ambient radiation monitor. Dollars invested includes the
full budget of the Radiation Protection Program.
Data Source: The performance measurement data—percentage of U.S. population covered by
the program—will be calculated annually from operational records maintained at the National
Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory. These records are an inherent part of program
oversight and will not require special data collection efforts. U.S. population numbers are based
on the Census 2000 from the U.S. Census Bureau. Program dollars are based on the full budget
of the Radiation Protection Program, which will be retrieved from the EPA Financial Data
Warehouse. The costs and data points produced will be determined annually for the system as a
whole, including existing (legacy) monitors and new near real-time monitors.
Methods and Assumptions: This measure reflects the population covered (i.e., within 25 miles
of a monitor) under an expanded and more robust system of radiation monitoring and assessment
per program dollar. As such, it is a very conservative estimate of "coverage." In the event of a
radiological emergency, the enhanced radiological monitoring system would support a number of
response measures and activities that cover and apply to the population as a whole. This entails
complete mobilization of EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Program and full
deployment of all monitoring capability, including up to 40 portable RadNet monitors. The
34
-------
efficiency measure is defined as the total costs (including FTE) to run both the legacy and near
real-time systems, which will provide scientists, decision makers, and the public information on
ambient radiation levels in airborne particulates under normal conditions or during radiological
incidents. As real-time monitors are put into service, the efficiency of the system will increase
dramatically. Near real-time units produce reliable data each hour as opposed to twice weekly for
conventional (legacy) monitors, which are dependent on shipment and analysis time of samples.
Suitability: This measure provides key information about population covered (i.e., within 25
miles of a monitor) under an expanded and more robust system of radiation monitoring and
assessment per program dollar.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Review: N/A
Data Limitations: None known
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: N/A
GOAL 1 OBJECTIVE 5
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce) of greenhouse gas emissions
reduced in the buildings 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-CC>2 emissions baselines. A baseline is the
"business-as-usual" case without the impact of EPA's voluntary climate programs. Baseline data
for carbon emissions related to energy use comes from the Energy Information Agency (EIA)
and from EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM) of the U.S. electric power sector. These data
are used for both historical and projected greenhouse gas emissions and electricity generation,
35
-------
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.
36
-------
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 6
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percent progress toward completion of a hierarchy of air pollutant sources based on
the risk they pose to human health (PART Measure)
37
-------
• 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: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database) and list
of recommendations from the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of: 1) overall progress toward
completing research goals, and 2) completion of distinct planned program outputs.
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, after which no changes are made. 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, Clean Air research program "planned" actions include the completion of
follow-up recommendations resulting 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. Additionally, completion rates of
research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
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 July 20, 2007)
Particulate Matter Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/pm.pdf (last
accessed July 20, 2007)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Research PART Program Assessment,
available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10001137.2005.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
38
-------
• Percentage of NAAQS program publications rated as highly cited papers (PART
Measure).
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Searches of Thomson Scientific's Web of Science and Scopus are conducted to
obtain "times cited" data for programs' publications. Analyses are completed using Thomson's
Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI
provides access to a unique and comprehensive compilation of essential science performance
statistics and science trends data derived from Thomson's databases.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For influence and impact measures, ESI employs both
total citation counts by field and cites per paper scores. The former reveals gross influence while
the latter shows weighted influence, also called impact. JCR is a recognized authority for
evaluating journals. It presents quantifiable statistical data that provide a systematic, objective
way to evaluate the world's leading journals and their impact and influence in the global research
community. The two key measures used in this analysis to assess the journals in which a
program's papers are published are the Impact Factor and Immediacy Index. The Impact Factor
is a measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a
particular year. The Impact Factor helps evaluate a journal's relative importance, especially
when compared to other journals in the same field.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Analyses do not capture citations within EPA regulations and other key
agency documents.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of
Research and Development's Parti culate Matter Research Program, available at:
http://es. epa.gov/ncer/publicati ons/bibliometrics/dw_bibliometri c_pm_only_0907.pdf (last
accessed on Jan 4, 2007)
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (PART Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on 1) self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals, and 2) spending data.
39
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Using an approach similar to Earned Value
Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned and
actual performance for each long-term goal (specifically, determining what percent of planned
program outputs were successfully completed on time), 2) determining the difference between
planned and actual cost for each long-term goal (specifically, determining the difference between
what the program actually spent and what it intended to spent), and 3) dividing the difference
between planned and actual performance by the difference between planned and actual cost.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Program activity costs are calculated through both actual and estimated costs
when activities are shared between programs. Performance data reflects only the key program
outputs, and does not include every activity completed by a program. Additionally, completion
rates of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References:
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Research PART Program Assessment,
available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10001137.2005.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percent of the population served by community water systems that meet all applicable
health-based drinking water standards through approaches including effective treatment
and source water protection [PART measure]
• Percent of the population in Indian country served by community water systems that
receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards
[PART measure]
• Percent of person months during which community water systems provide drinking
water that meets all applicable health-based standards [PART measure]
• Percent of community water systems that meet all applicable health-based standards
through approaches that include effective treatment and source water protection [PART
measure]
• The percentage of community water systems that have undergone a sanitary survey
within the past three years (five years for outstanding performance). [PART measure]
40
-------
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 health-based
drinking water regulations. The performance measures are based on the population served by
community water systems and the number of 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.
41
-------
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: Data Quality Review: Routine data quality assurance and quality control
analysis of SDWIS by the Agency revealed a degree of non-reporting of violations of health-
based drinking water standards, and of violations of regulatory monitoring and reporting
requirements. As a result, the Agency is now tracking and quantifying the quality of data
reported to SDWIS/FED as part of the Agency's National Water Program Guidance. The
Agency will continue follow and update the Data Reliability Implementation/Action Plan. EPA
will continue to review the results of on-site data verification (and eDV) and initiate a discussion
with individual states concerning any potential discrepancies with the data reported to
SDWIS/FED. The on-site DV will be conducted as described in the Data Verification Protocol.
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, trend 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.
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)
42
-------
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,2 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 or data systems
on other drinking water programs: 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. 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*
2 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.
43
-------
• 1999 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability
• 2003 SDWIS/FED Data Reliability Report - contains the Data Reliability Action Plan and
status report
Guidance Manuals, and Tools
• PWSS SDWIS/FED Quality Assurance Manual
• Various SDWIS/FED User and System Guidance Manuals (includes data entry
instructions, data On-line Data Element Dictionary-a database application, Error Code
Data Base (ECDB) - a database application, users guide, release notes, etc.) Available on
the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwisfed/sdwis.htm
• Regulation-Specific Reporting Requirements Guidance. Available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/regs.html
Web site addresses
• OGWDW Internet Site http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases.html and contains access
to the information systems and various guidance, manuals, tools, and reports.
• Sites of particular interest are:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/getdata.html contains information for users to better
analyze the data, and
http ://www. epa. gov/safewater/sdwi sfed/sdwi s .htm contains reporting guidance, system
and user documentation and reporting tools for the SDWIS/FED system.
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Fund Utilization Rate for the DWSRF [PART measure]
• Number of additional projects initiating operations [PART measure]
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
44
-------
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' "DWNEVIS 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
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 1999. 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 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of identified Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells closed or
permitted.
• Percentage of 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.
45
-------
Performance Database: The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program is authorized
under Part C Sections 1422 -1426 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOW A). 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 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
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 in 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.
46
-------
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:
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 Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water/UIC Program. Available on the website:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic.html
47
-------
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent 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). To date, data to support this measure have come 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, 2005 data released in 2006).3
Data Source: The ISSC requests the data on approved acreages from shellfish producing states
and prepares reports. Survey responses are voluntary.
Methods and Assumptions: The methods used by the state programs to produce the data used
by the ISSC are based on the National Shellfish Sanitation Plan and Model Ordinance; the
operation of those state programs is overseen by the FDA.4
Suitability: As water quality conditions are maintained or improved, "approved" or
"conditionally approved" shellfish growing acres impacted by anthropogenic sources should not
decrease. This measure is not suitable for annual comparison, but as reports are issued
periodically by the ISSC, updates on progress can be provided. There is no other suitable
surrogate.
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.
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
48
-------
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 Carolina. September 2006. (Amended March 2007)
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• 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
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
49
-------
Report also includes the data from the Second Report. A date for release of the Fourth National
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals has not been set, but current
expectation is that it will be published in summer 2008.
Methods and Assumptions: 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.
Suitability: This indicator was selected because it provides an indication of levels of exposure in
the human population to organic mercury where the main source is the consumption of fish and
shellfish contaminated with methylmercury. As consumers follow fish consumption advice,
changes in mercury in blood levels will decrease. This measure is not suitable for annual
comparison but the period reports form NHANES provides a direct measure of mercury in blood
levels in a representative sample of the US population.
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:
50
-------
1. 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 2009 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 and Assumptions: 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 water bodies 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
51
-------
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.
Suitability: This indicator is suitable as a performance measure because it captures the increased
incidence of outbreaks from recreational water contact due to poor water quality conditions.
Controlling sources of water contamination would result in maintaining or improving water
quality conditions, thereby avoiding an increase in outbreaks
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
52
-------
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.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
53
-------
• Percent 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.,
2008 calendar year data are used to report against FY 2009 commitments). For the 2006
swimming season, States and Territories monitored for pathogens at 3,771 coastal and Great
Lakes beaches. In re-evaluating their beach programs, several states combined small beaches into
larger beaches during 2006, reducing the total number of beaches monitored (from 4,025 in 2005
to 3,771 in 2006), but maintaining the scope of their programs.l
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 Act . 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 and Assumptions: 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.
Suitability: This indicator is suitable as a performance measure because it captures the
frequency of beach closings primarily due to poor water quality conditions. Controlling sources
of contamination would result in water quality improvement at beach thereby leading to fewer
closures.
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
54
-------
Plan," approved September 2001 and published July 20023). In addition, coastal and Great
Lakes states receiving BEACH Act grants are subject to the Agency's grant regulations under 40
CFR 31.45. These regulations require states and tribes to develop and implement quality
assurance practices for the collection of environmental information.
Data Quality Review: EPA reviews the survey responses to ensure the information is complete,
following up with the state or local government to obtain additional information where needed.
The Agency also reviews the QA/QC reports submitted by States and Territories as part of their
grant reporting. There have been no external party reviews of this information.
Data Limitations: From calendar year 1997 to calendar year 2002, participation in the survey
and submission of data 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 3,771 of approximately 6,000 coastal and Great Lakes beaches. All coastal and
Great Lakes states and territories utilize the implementation grants.
Error Estimate: Not all coastal and Great Lakes beaches are monitored. In 2006, States and
Territories reported that they monitored at 3,771 of the approximately 6,000 coastal and Great
Lakes beaches. This monitoring varies between States. For example, North Carolina monitors
all its 243 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 day.6 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 2009, EPA expects
all 35 coastal and Great Lakes states to again apply for grants to implement monitoring and
notification programs.
References:
1. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's Beach Report: 2006 Swimming Season." EPA-823-R-
55
-------
07-005. Washington, DC, May 2007. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2006
2. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for
Grants." EPA-823-B-02-004. Washington DC: EPA, June 2002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/guidance/all.pdf
3. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "A Quality Management Plan." EPA 821-X-02-001.
Washington, DC: EPA, July 2002. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/water/programs/qmpjuly2002.pdf
4. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. "EPA's BEACH Watch Program: 2002 Swimming Season."
EPA-823-F-03-007. Washington, DC, May 2003. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/beachwatch2003-newformat.pdf
5. Leecaster. M.K. and S.B. Weisberg, Effect of Sampling Frequency on Shoreline Microbiology
Assessments, Marine Pollution Bulletin., 42(11), 2001.
6. Boehm, A.B., et. al., Decadal and Shorter Period Variability of Surf Zone Water Quality at
Huntington Beach, California, Environmental Science and Technology, 36(18), 2002.
7. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. "The EMPACT Beaches Project, Results
and Recommendations from a Study on Microbiological Monitoring In Recreational Waters."
EPA 600/9-02/xxx. Washington, DC, Sept. 2002. (Draft Report).
GOAL 2 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of waters assessed using statistically valid surveys [PART Annual
Measure]
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
resource. Prior to sampling, field crews will undergo intensive training by EPA personnel on
56
-------
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
57
-------
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
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 2009 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 Long-term
and Annual Measure]
• Remove the specific causes of waterbody impairment identified by States in 2002
58
-------
• Improve water quality conditions in impaired watersheds nationwide using the
watershed approach
• Cost per water segment restored [PART Annual efficiency]
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/) is used to generate reports that identify waters that are not
meeting water quality standards ("impaired waters") and that need one or more TMDLs to be
developed. EPA combined this information with information and comment from EPA Regions
and States, on other impaired waters (those for which TMDLs have been completed but are not
yet meeting standards) to create the baseline data for these measures. As discussed below under
"New and Improved Data Systems," EPA is creating a single database that will track all the
impaired waters in the baseline for these measures.
There are several reasons why EPA or states may determine that specific water bodies listed as
impaired in 2002, the baseline year, are no longer impaired in the reporting year. For example,
water quality might improve due to EPA or state actions to reduce point and nonpoint source
discharges of pollutants. In other cases, a state or EPA might conduct more robust monitoring
studies and use these data to complete more accurate assessments of water quality conditions. In
some cases, a state might modify its water quality standards, in accordance with EPA's
regulations, to update scientific criteria or to better reflect the highest attainable conditions for its
waters. Each of these examples represents a case where a formerly impaired water no longer
may be found to exceed water quality standards. Any such removals of water body impairments
will be recorded based on reports from states scheduled every two years through 2012.
EPA's measure that tracks the improvement of water quality conditions utilizes the information
on impairments described above and incorporates two additional features: 12-digit hydrologic
unit code (HUC) boundaries and data on "watershed-wide water quality improvement." In 2007
(with some most current work in 2008), 12-digit HUC code watersheds will be completed,
certified and stored on USDA's comprehensive website for HUC watershed information (see
http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/index.html). EPA's $1.1M +
investment in boundary delineation and partner investments has ensured that all boundaries
needed for EPA strategic plan reporting will be completed prior to reporting deadlines. Data on
water quality improvements (e.g., a 20% reduction in nitrogen levels) will be documented via the
extensive process laid out in computational guidance for this measure and for the measures on
water quality standards and waterbody impairment (see
http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/documents/subobjective2_2_l.pdf)
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
59
-------
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 this measure.
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
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 and 2007, 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.
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.
60
-------
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) Program3, the March 15, 2000 Government Accounting Office report Water Quality:
Key Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data4, the 2001 National Academy of
Sciences Report Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management5 and EPA 's
Draft Report on the Environment.
6
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)7 provides comprehensive direction
3 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).
4 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)
5 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
6 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)
7 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)
61
-------
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 )8which 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
Practices9 (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).10 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 General11 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
8 USEPA, 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)
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)
10 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)
11 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.
62
-------
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. In 2008, EPA plans to
make a web data entry tool available for users who have not invested in the CDX node.
References:
63
-------
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/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 2009 Performance Measures;
64
-------
• Number of TMDLs that are established or approved by EPA [Total TMDLs] on a
schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative) [PART annual measure]
• Number of TMDLs that are established by States and approved by EPA [State TMDLs]
on a schedule consistent with national policy (cumulative) [PART annual measure]
Note: Because a TMDL is a plan for attaining water quality standards, the terms 'approved'
and 'established' refer to the completion of the TMDL itself and not necessarily its
implementation.
Performance Database: The Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking
And ImplementatioN System (ATTAINS) is a database which will capture water quality
information related to this measure. This database is an upgrade to the existing National TMDL
Tracking System (NTTS). ATTAINS will be 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. 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. 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-submitted TMDLs and for which EPA has established
TMDLs. Annual TMDL totals, spanning 1996 to the present, are available from ATTAINS 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." Newly attaining 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 these measures. 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 ATTAINS 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 the Water
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).
65
-------
Data Quality Review: Internal reviews of data quality have revealed some inconsistencies in
the methodology of data entry between EPA Regional Offices. 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 an ATTAINS design team is currently directing the database upgrades. One of
the issues raised included the methodology used to count TMDLs. Previous methodology
generated a TMDL "count" based on the causes of impairment removed from the 303(d)
impaired waters list as well as the TMDL pollutant. EPA proposed to change the counting
methodology to directly reflect only the pollutants given allocations in TMDLs. During a recent
EPA Office of the Inspector General review they concurred with this recommendation. This
proposed change was vetted during the TMDL Program's annual meeting in March 2007 and
implemented in August 2007, resulting in a cumulative net reduction of 1,577 TMDLs. Current
realization of targets shows the TMDL Program continues to attain PART and Strategic Plan
targets despite the adjustment to the counting methodology.
Data Limitations: To meet the increasing need for readily accessible CWA information, EPA is
both upgrading the current database and overseeing quality review of existing data. In the
process of developing the new database existing data entry requirements and procedures are
being reevaluated and communicated with data entry practitioners. Data quality has been
improving and will continue to improve during this overhaul.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is currently available for these data.
New/Improved Data Systems: See above.
References:
USEPA, Office of the Inspector General. 2007. Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs
Better Data and Measures to Demonstrate Environmental Results. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070919-2007-P-00036.pdf
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.
Link to TMDL report data can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/
Link to the Watershed Assessment Tracking Environmental Results System (WATERS) can be
found at: http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/expert_query.html
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
66
-------
• Percentage of major dischargers in Significant Noncompliance at any time
during the fiscal year (PART measure)
• 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 is 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
67
-------
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 1980s 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.
References:
PCS information is publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/water/pcssys.htm
FY 2009 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
68
-------
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 and Assumptions:
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
69
-------
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 2009 any qualifying submissions from May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2009,
that were approved by September 30, 2009, 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 or FY
2009.
Suitability: These two performance measures provide important information about how well
EPA and states/territories are carrying out their respective roles and responsibilities for
establishing and approving up-to-date scientifically defensible WQS. The first measure
describes how well EPA and states/territories are working together to set revised WQS that EPA
can approve in a timely fashion. The second measure provides an indicator of how well states'
WQS reflect latest scientific data.
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
70
-------
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 is planning to enhance
the existing WATA system to improve its capabilities and data quality.
References:
USEPA. September 13, 2006. Water Quality Standards Acting Tracking Application: Users
Manual. Available at http://intranet.epa.gov/ost/div/shpd/wata-manual.pdf.
USEPA. 2000. Water Quality Standards Regulation. Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR part
131. Available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/40cfrl3 l_05.html.
USEPA. August 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook, 2nd edition.
http ://www. epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Estimated annual reduction of nitrogen (millions of pounds), phosphorous (millions
of pounds), and sediment (tons) from nonpoint sources to waterbodies. [PART
Annual Measure]
Performance Database: The Section 319 Grants 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 NFS 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.
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
71
-------
(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.
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.
72
-------
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.
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)(ll) and 319(m)(l) require States to report their Nonpoint Source
Management Program (NPSMP) milestones, nonpoint source pollutant load reductions, and
water quality improvements. 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
73
-------
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.
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.
References: USEPA. Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and
Territories. October 23, 2003 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/cwact.html).
USEPA. Modifications to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants.
September 27, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/cwact.html).
USEPA. GRTS. Grants Tracking and Reporting System. GRTS Web User Guide, Version 1.6
March 15,2007.
74
-------
USEPA. WATERS. Watershed Assessment Tracking and Environmental Results.
(http://www.epa.gov/waters/).
USEPA. NHDPlus. National Hydrography Dataset Plus (http://www.horizon-
systems.com/nhdplus/).
USEPA. STORET. Storage and Retrieval (http://www.epa.gov/storet/dbtop.html).
USEPA. NAD. National Assessment Database (http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/).
USEPA. WQSDB. Water Quality Standards Database (http://www.epa.gov/wqsdatabase/).
USEPA. STEPL. Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Load (http://it.tetratech-
ffx.com/stepl/).
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of high priority EPA and State NPDES permits that are reissued on
schedule (PART Measure)
• Percentage of high priority state NPDES permits reissued on schedule (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.
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
75
-------
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.
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
76
-------
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• 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
and CWA Section 106 budget is pulled from EPA's Integrated Financial Management System
(IFMS). State 'match' dollars are reported to EPA by States.
77
-------
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 1999.12
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.
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
12 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
78
-------
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 base]. (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
79
-------
SWP PART Efficiency Measure Spreadsheet [Excel Spreadsheet]. Washington, D.C. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [Office of Wastewater Management].
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Fund utilization rate for the CWSRF [PART annual measure]
Performance Database: Clean Water State Revolving Fund National Information Management
System (NIMS.)
Data Sources: Data are from reporting by municipal and other facility operators, state
regulatory agency personnel and by EPA's regional staff. Data are collected and reported once
yearly.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Data entered into NEVIS are the units of performance.
These data are suitable for year-to-year comparison and trend indication.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's headquarters and regional offices are responsible for compiling the
data and querying states as needed to assure data validity and conformance with expected trends.
States receive data entry guidance from EPA headquarters in the form of annual memoranda. A
generic memorandum would be titled: "Request for Annual Update of Data for the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund National Information Management System, July 1, 200X through June 30,
200X."
Data Quality Reviews: EPA's headquarters and regional offices annually review the data
submitted by the states. These state data are publicly available at
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfmance/cwsrf in individual state reports. EPA's headquarters
addresses significant data variability issues directly with states or through the appropriate EPA
regional office. An annual EPA headquarters' "N IMS Analysis" provides detailed data
categorization and comparison. This analysis is used during annual EPA regional office and state
reviews to identify potential problems which might affect the performance measure, biennial
reviews by EPA's headquarters of regional oversight of state revolving funds and, annual
reviews by EPA's regional offices of their states' revolving funds operations.
State data quality is also evaluated during annual audits performed by independent auditors or by
the appropriate regional office of the EPA Inspector General. These audits are incorporated into
EPA headquarters' financial management system.
Data Limitations: There are no known limitations in the performance data, which states submit
voluntarily. Erroneous data can be introduced into the NEVIS database by typographic or
definitional error. Typographic errors are controlled and corrected through data testing
performed by EPA's contractor. Definitional errors due to varying interpretations of information
requested for specific data fields have been virtually eliminated in the past two years as a result
of EPA headquarters' clarification of definitions. These definitions are publicly available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf There is typically a lag of approximately two months
80
-------
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 NEVIS are available by state at:
http ://www. epa.gov/owm/cwfmance/cwsrf
Definitions of data requested for each data field in NEVIS is available at:
http ://www. epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
The Office of Water Quality Management Plan, July 2001 (approved September 28, 2001)
addresses the quality of data in NEVIS. Not publicly available.
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of waterbodies restored or improved per million dollars of CWSRF
assistance provided. (PART efficiency measure)
• Number of waterbodies protected per million dollars of CWSRF assistance
provided. (PART efficiency 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
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 2007, the environmental benefits of $13.4 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 ED 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.
81
-------
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.
References:
Definitions of data requested for each data field in the CBR database are 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 2009 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), managed by the
Indian Health Service (MS), Office of Environmental Health and Engineering (OEHE),
Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction (DSFC). This database has been modified
82
-------
to include information on water and wastewater projects in 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.
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.
83
-------
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 2009 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.
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
84
-------
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: Initial reporting in FY 2007 did not indicate that any
improvements to the collection and/or evaluation of data to support the measure were needed.
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
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 2009 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)
85
-------
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of WQRP long-term goal #1:
the protection of human health and ecosystems as related to designated uses for
aquatic systems and the beneficial use of biosolids long-term goal (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of WQRP long-term goal #2:
diagnostics and forecasting techniques for the protection of human health and
ecosystems as related to designated uses for aquatic systems and the beneficial use of
biosolids long-term goal (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the WQRP long-term goal #3:
1) restore impaired aquatic systems, 2) protect unimpaired systems, 3) provide
human health risk and treatment process information on the beneficial use of
biosolids, and 4) forecast the ecologic, economic, and human health benefits of
alternative approaches to attaining water quality standards (PART Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database)
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of completion of planned program
outputs.
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, after which no changes are made. 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 ORE) 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. Additionally, completion rates of
research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
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 July 20, 2007).
Water Quality Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/wq.pdf (last accessed July
20, 2007).
86
-------
Drinking Water Research Program PART Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004371.2005.html (last accessed
August 16, 2007)
Water Quality Research Program PART Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004306.2006.html
(last accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2009 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
July 20, 2007)
Water Quality Research Program PART Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004306.2006.html
(last accessed August 16, 2007)
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
87
-------
• Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on 1) self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals, and 2) spending data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Using an approach similar to Earned Value
Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned and
actual performance for each long-term goal (specifically, determining what percent of planned
program outputs were successfully completed on time), 2) determining the difference between
planned and actual cost for each long-term goal (specifically, determining the difference between
what the program actually spent and what it intended to spent), and 3) dividing the difference
between planned and actual performance by the difference between planned and actual cost.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Program activity costs are calculated through both actual and estimated costs
when activities are shared between programs. Performance data reflects only the key program
outputs, and does not include every activity completed by a program. Additionally, completion
rates of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Water Quality Research Program PART Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004306.2006.html
(last accessed August 16, 2007)
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Daily per capita generation of municipal solid waste [PA R T perfor mance]
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
88
-------
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.
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 2009 Performance Measure:
89
-------
• Pounds of MSW recycled related to EPA recycling efforts over total EPA recycling
dollars and FTE [PART efficiency-under development]
Performance Database: Data are provided by EPA and the Department of Commerce.
Data Source: National estimates 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.
Additional Agency performance data include: total pounds recycled in a year attributable to EPA
FTE and contract funds as reported in EPA's Annual Commitment System (ACS), recycling
achievements in EPA's recycling partnership programs, as well as the total cost to the Agency
including annual recycling dollars, and FTE for HQ and the Regions.
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.
EPA's new long-term 2011 measure focuses on the total pounds of recycling that EPA influences
in the United States. EPA helps to increase the amount of materials recycled through its
educational materials, technical support, direct assistance, and through recycling partnership
programs such as WasteWise, GreenScapes and Recycling on the Go. EPA's new long-term
measure focuses on the Agency's recycling achievements by attributing a certain percentage of
the pounds recycled in its recycling partnership programs to Agency pollution prevention efforts,
counting 100% the total pounds recycled through its grants and projects supported by Agency
FTE and contract funds as reported in ACS, and adding an additional 10% of the total national
pounds recycled as an estimate of EPA's influence on national recycling rate. In addition, the
new MSW efficiency measure focuses on EPA costs, both extramural dollars and FTE. By
focusing on the Agency's specific contributions to recycling, this will more accurately represent
EPA's efficiency.
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.
EPA's budget information and partnership programs data are subject to EPA's QA/QC
procedures.
90
-------
Data Quality Review: The "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States"
report, including the baseline numbers and annual rates of recycling and per capita municipal
solid waste generation, is widely accepted among solid waste 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.
In addition, the new measure is contingent upon collection of accurate and up-to-date
information from the recycling partnership programs.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) does not collect data on
estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The new long-term measure represents EPA's
accomplishments in promoting recycling.
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.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Number of hazardous waste facilities with new controls or updated controls.
[PART measure]
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database which supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: Data are mainly entered by the states and can be entered directly into RCRAInfo,
although some choose to use a different program and then "translate" the information into
RCRAInfo. Supporting documentation and reference materials are maintained in Regional and
state files.
91
-------
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: RCRAInfo, the national database which supports
EPA's RCRA program, contains information on entities (genetically referred to as "handlers")
engaged in hazardous waste generation and management activities regulated under the portion of
RCRA that provides for regulation of hazardous waste. RCRAInfo has several different modules,
including status of RCRA facilities in the RCRA permitting universe.
QA/QC Procedures: States and EPA's Regional offices generate the data and manage data
quality related to timeliness and accuracy. Within RCRAInfo, the application software contains
structural controls that promote the correct entry of the high-priority national components.
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. 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 facility has approved controls in place is based primarily 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 updated controls is based on the permit
expiration date code. We have discussed the need for correct entry with the Regions.
During 2008, we plan to update the baseline for tracking in FY09 and beyond. The updates are
anticipated to be minimal. New reports should be developed in RCRAInfo in FY08 in order to
better track FY09 goals.
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
92
-------
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 updated controls are intended to apply to the
facilities that are "due for permit renewals," but we anticipate that there will be some facilities
that cease to be "due for permit renewals" because of a change in facility status.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently OSW does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: 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. New reporting capabilities have been added in FY07.
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-
167, August 22, 1995, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ai95167.pdf).
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• No more than 10,000 confirmed releases per year
• Increase the rate of significant operational compliance by 1% of the previous year's
target
• Annual confirmed releases per annual underground storage tanks leak prevention cost
[PART Efficiency]
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. For the PART Efficiency Performance Measure, OUST will estimate the value
of this efficiency measure based on data that EPA and state agencies currently collect and
maintain. The data includes the states' semi-annual activity reports, which track the number of
releases confirmed each year and the number of active underground storage tanks; funding for
leak prevention and matching expenditure of 25 percent for every dollar of leak prevention
funding the states receive; and EPA's prevention program administration costs, such as salary,
travel expenses, contracts and working capital funds.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: N/A
93
-------
QA/QC Procedures: For the semi-annual activity report data, 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. For
the PART Efficiency Measure, FY 2007 was the baseline for implementation and QA/QC
procedures are not yet in place.
Data Quality Review: None.
Data Limitations: For the semi-annual activity report, 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: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum, FY 2007 End-of-Year
Activity Report., from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks to
UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10, dated December 5, 2007,
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca_07_34.pdf.
FY 2009 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 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 the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency (EIA), the
Portland Cement Association and other publicly available trade association data. A limited
amount of data relevant to recycling has been reported on EIA Form 767, which was
discontinued in 2007. These data will likely be collected on a different EIA form in the future.
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.
94
-------
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: New or additional measurement techniques will need to be
developed for 2007 data and beyond based on the development of new EIA forms to track
generation and recycling.
References: The American Coal Ash Annual Survey is located at http://www.acaa-usa.org/.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
* Number of facilities with new or updated controls per million dollars of program
cost [PART efficiency]
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:
95
-------
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.
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.
Error Estimate: N/A. Currently OSW does not collect data on estimated error rates.
New/Improved Data or Systems: 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 2009 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
96
-------
Performance Database: EPA's regional offices, in collaboration with the Indian Health Service
(IHS), report annually the performance data to the WSTARS database.
Data Source: EPA and the Indian Health Service are co-sponsors of the Tribal Solid Waste
Management Assistance Project. 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 IHS WSTARS data are reported voluntarily by federally recognized
tribal members. The member tribal data are extrapolated to generate national estimates, per the
request from Congress.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The Tribal Solid Waste Management Assistance
Project is a national program that began in 2001 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.
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 accurate
assumptions can be made about the numbers of open dumps and the solid waste management
plans generated, the data may be extrapolated to estimate the total open dumps and solid waste
management plans for the federally recognized tribes within the United States. The data,
however, may be limited in certain regions of the country, making extrapolations to a national
statistic 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 MS, WSTARS data are available from the HIS website at www.ihs.gov.
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 2
97
-------
FY 2009 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.
Prevention and preparedness expenditures are tracked in the Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS), the Agency's financial database.
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
extracted by EPA HQ from IFMS.
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 should 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.
98
-------
References: For additional information on the Oil program, see www.epa.gov/oilspill
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
Score in annual Core Emergency Responseassessment
Performance Database: No specific database has been developed. Data from evaluations from
each of the 10 Regions are tabulated and stored using standard software (e.g., Word
spreadsheets).
Data Source: Data are collected through detailed surveys of all Regional programs, as well as
HQ offices and Special Teams of responders; the process includes interviews with personnel and
managers in each program office. The score represents a composite based upon data from each
unique Regional and headquarters organization. Annual increments represent annual
improvements. The survey instrument was developed based upon Core Emergency Response
(ER) elements, and has been approved by EPA Headquarters and Regional managers. Core ER
elements cover all aspects of the Core ER program, including Regional Response Centers,
transportation, coordination with backup Regions, health and safety, delegation and warrant
authorities, response readiness, response equipment, identification clothing, training and
exercises, and outreach.
While EPA is currently prepared to respond to chemical, biological, and radiological incidents,
improvement in the emergency response and homeland security readiness measure will
demonstrate an increased ability to respond quickly and effectively to national-scale events. The
FY 2009 Core ER target is to improve emergency response and homeland security readiness by
10 points from the FY 2008 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, Special Teams, 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 staff or group will be responsible for gathering and analyzing all
99
-------
the data to determine the overall score for each Regional office, Special Teams 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, Special Teams, 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: None.
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of final Superfund site assessment decisions [PA R T perfor mance]
• Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control [PART perfor mance]
• Number of 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 ready for anticipated use site-wise
• Number of Superfund sites with human exposures under control per million dollars
obligated [PART efficiency]
• Program dollars expended annually per operable unit completing cleanup activities
[Federal Facilities PART efficiency measure].
• Voluntary removal actions overseen by EPA and completed [PART perfor mance]
• Superfund-lead removal actions completed annually [PART performance]
100
-------
• 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]
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 and Assumptions: Except for financial information, each performance measure is a
specific variable entered into CERCLIS following specific coding guidance and corresponding
supporting site-specific documentation.
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. Site-specific obligation data
are derived using query logic that evaluates the Site/Project field of the IFMS account number.
Suitability: The Superfund Remedial Program's performance measures for FY 2009 are the
result of several years of refinement with OMB as follow-up to the Program's 2004 PART
Review. The measures currently used to demonstrate program progress reflect several major
milestones that reflect site cleanup progress from start (final assessment decision) to finish (sites
ready for anticipate use). Each measure marks a significant step in ensuring human health and
environment protection at Superfund sites. OMB has accepted these measures for monitoring
program performance on an annual basis.
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, data 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
101
-------
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 2008/2009 (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim08.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 2100.5
(http://www.epa.gOv/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf); 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.
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.
102
-------
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 that
supports 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 SPEVI
Appendix E, Section E.A.5 "Data Owners/Sponsorship' was revised to reflect what data quality
checks (focus data studies) will be done by designated Regional and headquarters staff; 5) a data
quality objectives supplement for GPRA measures was added in Change 6 to the FY04/05 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
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, Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites
(GAO/RECD-98-241), dated August 28, 1998, estimates that the cleanup status of National
Priority List sites reported by CERCLIS is accurate for 95 percent of the sites. The OIG report,
Information Technology - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) Data Quality (Report No. 2002-P-00016), dated September 30,
2002, states that over 40 percent of CERCLIS data on site actions reviewed was inaccurate or not
adequately supported. Although the 11 recommendations were helpful and improved some
controls over CERCLIS data, the Agency disagreed and strongly objected to the study design
and report conclusions.
New/Improved Data or Systems: As a result of a modernization effort completed in 2004,
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. 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. Information developed and
103
-------
gathered in the modernization effort is being used as a valuable resource for scoping the future
redesign of CERCLIS. The redesign is necessary to bring CERCLIS into alignment with the
Agency's mandated Enterprise Architecture. The first major step in this effort was the migration
of all 10 Regional databases and the Headquarters database into one single national database at
the National Computing Center in RTF. The Superfund Document Management System
(SDMS) has also migrated to RTF to improve efficiency and storage capacity. During this
migration the SDMS was linked to CERCLIS which enable users to easily transition between
programmatic accomplishments as reported in CERCLIS and the actual document that defines
and describes the accomplishments. EPA Headquarters is also evaluating the need and increased
functionality of an integrated SDMS-CERCLIS system. Tentatively that system is called the
Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS). Work on SEMS has started in FY 2007 and
will continue through FY 2009.
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 was
released in CERCLIS in June of 2007 to support two new performance measures.
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/policy/guidance.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 2100.5
(http://www.epa.gOv/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf). 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)
All referenced internet addressed were last accessed on 07/31/07.
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins under control.
104
-------
• Number of RCRA facilities with migration of contaminated groundwater under
control.
• Number of RCRA facilities with final remedies constructed.
• Percent increase of final remedy components constructed at RCRA corrective action
facilities per federal, state and private sector costs. [PART efficiency measure]
Performance Database: The Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System
(RCRAInfo) is the national database that supports EPA's RCRA program.
Data Source: The states and Regions enter data. A "High", "Medium", or "Low" entry is made
in the database with respect to final assessment decision. A "yes" or "no" 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.
Remedies selected and complete constructions of remedies measure are 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
105
-------
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.
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).
106
-------
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
» 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]
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: 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: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum, FY 2007 End-of-Year
Activity Report, from Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks to
UST/LUST Regional Division Directors, Regions 1-10, dated December 5, 2007,
http://www.epa.gov/OUST/cat/ca_07_34.pdf.
107
-------
GOAL 3 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Refer to DOJ, settle, or write off 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)
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: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management
Plan, approved October 2, 2007. 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, data 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 2008/2009 (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim08.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 2100.5
(http://www.epa.gOv/irmpoli8/ciopolicy/2100.5.pdf); 2) the Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation Quality Management Plan
108
-------
(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
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: None
References: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) Quality Management Plan,
approved October 2, 2007.
FY 2009 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 completion of planned program
outputs.
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, after which no changes
are made. 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
109
-------
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. Additionally, completion rates of research outputs
are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
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 July 20, 2007)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Multi-Year Plan, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/myp/rcra.pdf (last accessed on July 20, 2007)
Land Protection and Restoration Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html (last accessed
August 16, 2007)
FY 2009 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 technical support centers' tracking of timeliness in
meeting customer needs.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The dates of requests, due dates, response time, and
customer outcome feedback are 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: Land Protection and Restoration Research PART Program Assessment, available
at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004305.2006.html (last accessed
August 16, 2007)
110
-------
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 1
FY 2009 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. These steps within the validation process include: detailed review papers
completed, prevalidation studies completed, validation by multiple labs completed, peer reviews,
and the cumulative number of assays that have been validated.
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). The baseline for this measure is zero assays validated (FY 2005).
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The measure is a program output which when
finalized, helps 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. The measure represents the ultimate objective of this program (e.g.,
validating assays for use in screening and testing chemicals for potential endocrine effects, as
required by FQPA.)
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.
Ill
-------
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Contract cost reduction per study for assay validation efforts in the Endocrine
Disrupter Screening Program. (PART Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: EPA will measure the contract cost reduction per study for assay
validation efforts in the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) by comparing the cost
per study from a previous contract to the cost of a newer multiple awards contract. The newer
multiple awards contract involves competition for individual work assignments among two
vendors in an effort to provide increased flexibility in both the economic and scientific aspects of
the contract. In addition, assays that have now been standardized may be competed on a fixed
price, rather than level of effort basis, which will lead to reduced costs for the government.
This efficiency measure must be used in conjunction with the program's annual performance
measure (cumulative number of assays validated) to obtain a complete picture of program
performance. This is consistent with OMB's direction during the FY06 PART review of EPA's
Endocrine Program - to have efficiency measures and annual performance measures, that when
taken together, give a full picture of the program.
Data Source: Information will be obtained from contract documents and stored in spreadsheets
by OSCP personnel responsible for managing the contracts.
Methods and Assumptions: The baseline average cost per study was calculated based on
contract costs from a previous EDSP contract. A laboratory study was defined as conduct of an
assay with a single chemical in a single lab, and represents standardized study costs based on a
mix of in vitro and in vivo studies, as well as detail review papers. The baseline average cost per
study was $62,175 in 2006. The measure of efficiency will be based on similar data from the
newer multiple award contract and judged based on the target of a 1% cost reduction per year for
three (3) years.
Suitability: The majority of funds allocated to the EDSP are spent on laboratory studies
conducted by contractors. As a result, a measure based on the contract costs is a suitable
measure of efficiency for this program.
112
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Costs for products generated by scientific labs are used for this efficiency
measure. OPPT's Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP) maintains spreadsheets to
track contract expenditures by study. These spreadsheets are periodically checked against
contract records and EPA contracts databases (i.e., Data Financial Warehouse).
Data Quality Review: Data generated from these spreadsheets, for the purposes of this
efficiency measure, will be independently reviewed for accuracy before submitting information
on this measure.
Data Limitations: In general, 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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Millions 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
113
-------
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.
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);
University of Georgia Entomology Dept, (www.ent.uga.edu/IPM/slOO/household.htm); National
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 2009 Performance Measure:
114
-------
• 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 (USDA) 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
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 billion13 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.
! The value received by farmers was $200 billion.
115
-------
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 (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:
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 2009 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
116
-------
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 land use 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
(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: //del s. 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.
117
-------
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 2009 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.
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
118
-------
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 2009 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:
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,
119
-------
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:
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.
120
-------
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.
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Reduced cost per pesticide occupational incident avoided (PART efficiency)
121
-------
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.
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 actions 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
122
-------
(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.
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.
123
-------
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 2009 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 50* 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
124
-------
(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
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
125
-------
FY 2009 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
under the Interagency Agreement (IAG). 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
126
-------
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.
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Reduce 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. Eventually, Pesticide
Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) data will be included. 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 performance data are the acres impacted by the project verses the
amount of grant or contract funds.
127
-------
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,
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 likely 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,
funding and managing this kind of sample survey will be a challenge.
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 are intended to
reduce errors, but best estimates may be relied upon when statistically valid samples are not
available.
128
-------
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 2009 Performance Measures:
• Register reduced-risk pesticides, including biopesticides
• New Chemicals (Active Ingredients)
• New Uses
• Percent reduction in review time for registration of conventional pesticides (Long-
term PART efficiency measure)
• Maintain timeliness of Section 18 Decisions
Performance Database: The OPPIN/PRISM (Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Network/Pesticide Registration Information System) 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/PRISM, 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. S18 timeliness was 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
129
-------
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/PRISM (Office of Pesticide Programs
Information Network/Pesticide Registration Information System), 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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Product Reregistration
Performance Database: The OPPIN/PRISM (Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Network/Pesticide Registration Information System) 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/PRISM, manual counts are
also maintained by the office on the reregi strati on decisions. Decisions are logged in as the
action is completed, both for final decisions and interim decisions.
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.
130
-------
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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The OPPIN/PRISM, 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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percentage of agricultural acres treated 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
131
-------
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 Doane 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 2009 Performance Measure:
132
-------
• Annual number of chemicals with proposed Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
(AEGLs) values. (PART measure)
Performance Database: Performance is measured by the annual number of chemicals with
"Proposed" AEGL values as recorded in the AEGL Chemical Status sans Structure Access 2000
database containing the approval dates for proposed AEGL values. The results are calculated on
a fiscal year basis.
Data Source: EPA manages a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee that reviews
short term exposure values for extremely hazardous chemicals. The supporting data, from both
published and unpublished sources and from which the AEGL values are derived, are collected,
evaluated, and summarized by FACA Chemical Managers and Oak Ridge National Laboratory's
scientists. Proposed AEGL values are published for public comment in the Federal Register.
After reviewing public comment, interim values are presented to the AEGL Subcommittee of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for review and comment. After review and comment
resolution, the National Research Council under the auspices of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) publishes the values as final. 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 and Assumptions: 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, has 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 number of AEGL values approved as "proposed" by the NAC/AEGL
FACA Committee represents the measure of performance. The data meet the standards in the
QMP and the outcomes are reviewed by senior management.
Suitability: This output measure supports the long term goal of assigning proposed Acute
Exposure Guideline Levels for all priority chemicals by 2011.
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. QA/QC procedures, specific to AEGLs, 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: Not applicable. The counts used as a basis for this measure are fully
transparent.
133
-------
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. Once completed, this new database should enhance the efficiency
of AEGL development.
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent reduction from baseline year in total EPA cost per chemical for which
Proposed AEGL value sets are developed (PART efficiency measure)
Performance Database: OPPT maintains records on AEGL program income, expenditures and
carryover from one year to the next, and on the number of FTEs 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 tracked through a GPRA and Budget Accomplishment Word
document. The denominator of the measure - number of proposed AEGL value sets - is tracked
using the AEGL Chemical Status sans Structure Access 2000 database containing the approval
dates for proposed AEGL values.
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 and Assumptions: The methods involved in developing and reporting on this
performance measure consist of simple computational steps performed on data relating to AEGL
cost and accomplishment. For these computational steps it is necessary to track the number of
134
-------
FTEs 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 files, multiplying an
appropriate percentage estimating 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 the appropriate percentage is used to reasonably estimate
the proposal stage's share of total cost devoted to AEGLs. Targets are based on what is
considered reasonable and achievable.
The data used to estimate this performance measure represent all the costs for developing a
proposed AEGL value set and are the most acceptable for this requirement. The data meet the
standards in the QMP and the outcomes are reviewed by senior management.
Suitability: The indicators used for this measure are suitable because reductions in cost per
AEGL value are expected to result from improvements in program implementation. These cost
reductions will enable EPA to achieve the goals of the AEGL program with greater efficiency.
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. Specific 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 QA/QC controls.
Data Quality Review: 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. Once completed, this new database should enhance the efficiency
of AEGL development.
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.
135
-------
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 2009 Performance Measures:
•• Number of cases of children aged 1-5 years with elevated blood lead levels (> 10 ug/dL)
(PART 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.
(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 are currently released to the public in two year sets. 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
Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals was released July 2005, and is
available at the Web site http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. The Fourth National Exposure
report is expected in the summer of 2008.
Methods and Assumptions: 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. The
NHANES data directly estimate the values included in the two performance measures and are
136
-------
nationally recognized as the best source of this data. This data source measures blood levels in
the same units (i.e., ug/dL) and at standard detection limits.
Suitability: The first measure supports the long-term goal of eliminating childhood lead
poisoning as a public health concern by the year 2010. Data are collected on a calendar year
basis and released to the public in two-year data sets. Data as of May 2005 reflecting 1999-2002
results, demonstrate progress towards the EPA's long-term target.
The second measure examines the disparities of blood lead levels in low-income children
compared to non low-income children and uses this measure to track progress towards EPA's
long-term goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning in harder to reach vulnerable
populations.
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 Third
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Web site,
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/; 3) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (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
137
-------
Guidelines, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/nhanes2003-
2004/anal ytical_guidelines.htm.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Annual percentage of lead-based paint certification and refund applications that
require less than 20 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
including final decisions and the multiple steps in the process used for measurement. The
database is augmented by hard copy records of the original applications. EPA uses an Oracle
Discoverer application to query the database to collect measurable performance data.
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 and Assumptions: Each complete application for certification or accreditation in
Federally-managed states and tribal lands is processed (approximately 3000 per year).
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 is periodically conducted, and the
percentage of applications that took more than the prescribed number of days (e.g., 20) of EPA
effort to process is computed based on this census. The census is conducted every six months,
and the annual percentage calculated appropriately from the six month percentages. The data
used to estimate this performance measure directly reflect all information that has been recorded
pertaining to certification applications and are the most acceptable for this requirement. The data
meet the standards in the QMP and the outcomes are reviewed by senior management.
Suitability: This measure tracks EPA Headquarters and Regional effort in processing lead-
based paint certification and refund applications. This measure reflects an integral part of the
Lead Program and ensures proper training for lead-based professionals. Data are available mid-
year and end-of-year and enable the program to demonstrate program efficiencies and enhance
accountability.
138
-------
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. In addition, 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
internal quality reviews. Further, EPA periodically checks contractors' data entry quality.
Data Limitations: Applications that were returned to the applicant or withdrawn by the
applicant are not captured in the database and are out of scope for this performance measure.
While the report is based on a census, it generates some duplicative data, which must be removed
manually. Efforts are made to remove all duplicative data, while preserving valid data.
However, because this is a non-automated process, a small amount of human error is possible.
Some variability occurs due to unique conditions that vary by Region. Some Regions
consistently process applications in less time than others. This variability may be due to factors
such as badge printing capabilities and economies of scale.
Error Estimate: There is little or 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 after the renovation, remodeling and painting rule is finalized. 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 2009 Performance Measures:
• Reduction in the current year production-adjusted risk-based score of releases and
transfers of toxic chemicals from manufacturing facilities (PART measure)
• Annual reduction in the production-adjusted risk-based score of releases and
transfers of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals from manufacturing
facilities [PART measure]
Performance Database: The Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Model feeds
these measures and uses annual reporting from individual industrial facilities along with a variety
139
-------
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,
most recent performance data are only available for FY 2005 and earlier. 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 IRIS;
facility location data from EPA's Facility Registry System (FRS); 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; stream discharge data from EPA's Permit Compliance System
(PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS); 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 and Assumptions: The RSEI Model generates unique, unitless, numerical values,
known as "Indicator Elements" using the factors pertaining to surrogate dose, toxicity and
exposed population for each release-exposure event. Indicator Elements are risk-related
measures generated for every possible combination of reporting facility, chemical, release
medium, and exposure pathway (inhalation or ingestion). Together these values form the
building blocks to describe exposure scenarios of interest. Indicator Elements are like index
numbers that can be compared to one-another but do not reflect actual risk, and are proportional
to the modeled relative risk of each release (incrementally higher numbers reflect greater
estimated risk). 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 are only meaningful when compared to other scores produced by RSEI. These data
are acceptable for use in performance measurement as they are national data reflecting releases
and transfers of chemicals from manufacturing facilities, including a number of high production
volume chemicals i.e., the data of interest for this measure.
Suitability: The first measure supports the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program's
goal to reduce risk from new and existing chemicals. This measure provides a suitable year to
year comparison against a long term goal of 50% reduction in the RSEI index. The second
measure supports the long term goal to reduce the RSEI index for HPV chemicals 45% by 2011.
This measure provides a suitable year to year comparison against this goal and looks specifically
at the reduction of risk for the subset of TRI chemicals that are also HPV chemicals. The year to
year comparison can reveal trends in the risk from HPV chemicals over time. Despite a two year
lag in TRI data, annual comparisons of overall RSEI results (first measure) and RSEI HPV
results (second measure) can reveal trends in chemical risk over time. Further, depending on how
the user wishes to aggregate data, RSEI can also address trends nationally, regionally, by state or
smaller geographic areas.
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,
140
-------
Pesticides and Toxic Substances," June 2003) and will ensure that those standards and
procedures are applied to this effort. Additionally because TRI facilities self-report release data
and occasionally make errors. TRI has quality control functions and an error-correction
mechanism for reporting such mistakes. Finally during each RSEI update, the output data are
checked against TRI data for consistency, and the results are compared against previous years'
RSEI results.
Data Quality Reviews: RSEI depends upon a broad array of data resources, each of which has
completed a data-specific quality review process managed by the providers of the data sources.
RSEI includes data from the many sources listed in "Data Sources", above. All data are 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 (SAB). 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 facility-specific data (for parameters such as stack height,
discharge stream reach, location) from EPA data sources. Where such data are not available,
default assumptions are used, or in some cases, the release is not modeled. Offsite releases (from
transfers of toxic chemicals) are particularly affected by a lack of reported TRI data, and while
RSEI addresses this through a process that optimizes the available data, the data are limited and
of uneven quality. In addition, toxicity data are not available for some of the less-toxic TRI
chemicals. Releases to water are not available for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and U.S.
territories, and some releases to water (for reporting facilities and offsite facilities) may not be
modeled because of inadequate coverage in the stream reach data. It should also be noted that
TRI data include releases only from TRI-reportable facilities for TRI-reportable chemicals. It
does not include all releases from reporting facilities or all releases of TRI-reportable chemicals.
TRI data may also have errors that are not corrected in the standard TRI QC process.
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.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The program regularly tracks improvements in other Agency
databases (e.g., Safe Drinking Water Information System and Reach File databases) and
incorporates updated data into the RSEI databases. Such improvements can also lead to
methodological modifications in the model. Corrections in TRI reporting data for all previous
141
-------
years are captured by the annual updates to the RSEI model databases. EPA is now using data
from the FRS to assign geographic locations to TRI facilities.
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent of new chemicals or organisms introduced into commerce that do not pose
unreasonable risks to workers, consumers or environment
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 for new chemicals called ISIS, and the
Focus database. The following information from these databases will be used collectively in
applying this measure:
• CBITS: Tracking information on Pre-Manufacture Notices (PMNs) received;
• PMN CBI LAN: Records documenting PMN review and decision, assessment reports on
chemicals submitted for review. In addition, the information developed for each PMN is kept in
hard copy in the Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC);
• ISIS: Data submitted by industry under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(e).
TSCA 8(e) requires that chemical manufacturers, processors, and distributors notify EPA
immediately of new (e.g. not already reported), unpublished chemical information that
reasonably supports a conclusion of substantial risk. TSCA 8(e) substantial risk information
notices most often contain toxicity data but may also contain information on exposure,
environmental persistence, or actions being taken to reduce human health and environmental
risks. It is an important information-gathering tool that serves as an early warning mechanism;
• Focus Database: Rationale for decisions emerging from Focus meeting, including decisions on
whether or not to drop chemicals from further review.
142
-------
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) is responsible for the
implementation of the TSCA. The office 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). This comparison will 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 and Assumptions: 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. The following 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 based on the PMN review phase. For example,
were 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 focusing on 8(e)s received after the PMN review period was completed.
4. Compare hazard evaluation developed during PMN review with the associated 8(e)
submission.
5. Report on the accuracy of the initial hazard determination.
6. Revise risk assessment 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.
Suitability: The databases used and the information retrieved are directly applicable to this
measurement and therefore suitable for measurement purposes. This measure supports the New
143
-------
Chemical program's goal to ensure that new chemicals introduced into commerce do not pose
unreasonable risks to workers, consumers, or the environment. This measure provides a suitable
year to year comparison against this goal because supporting data and analysis are conducted on
an annual basis, directly linking to this long-term goal.
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: 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 the integrated, electronic
Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) 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 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percent reduction from baseline year in average cost of TSCA Section 8(e)
processing and searches. [PART efficiency measure]
• Percent reduction from baseline year in cost of managing PMN submissions through
the Focus meeting as a percentage of baseline year cost. [PART efficiency measure]
144
-------
Performance Databases: EPA will rely on several principal databases to facilitate
implementation of the TSCA Section 8(e) and new chemical submission efficiency measures:
• Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS): CBITS allows users to
access basic identifying and status information on each hard copy 8(e) notification and
new chemical submission to EPA, track receipt of each hard copy submission as well as
requests for copies of submissions or information therein, and to obtain data on number
of hard copy submissions and requests for copies per fiscal year. CBITS is a paper
system which will eventually be phased out in favor of MTS database (see below).
• Manage Toxic Substances (MTS) database: This is a new system that, when applied to
8(e) notifications and new chemical submissions in FY 2008, will enable users to receive,
process, and store electronic submissions of 8(e) notifications and new chemical
submissions information, and accommodate subsequent searches and retrievals
performed by EPA or contractor staff. The system will provide data on the number of
electronic submissions per fiscal year and the number of searches and retrievals
conducted electronically by accessing scanned documents.
Data Sources: The sources of data for this performance measure are the 8(e) notifications and
new chemical submissions and the information summarized in the databases described above.
No external data sources play a direct role in the calculation of measurement results, although the
8(e) notifications often make reference to external data sources in which the reported 8(e)
information originally appeared.
Methods and Assumptions: The efficiency measure "Average cost of TSCA Section 8(e)
processing and searches" is calculated by: (1) defining the baseline year (FY 2007) and
developing baseline information expressed as the average time required to conduct 8(e)
processing and searches in the baseline year; (2) converting average time to average cost
measurements; (3) setting appropriate targets for outyears, reflecting increasing levels of
efficiency; and (4) conducting actual measurements for fiscal years beginning with FY 2009,
after electronic submissions, processing and searches begin. These steps can be summarized
individually as follows:
(1) Obtain baseline data: FY 2007 baseline data were obtained for each of five distinct
sub-measures that are combined additively to produce the single efficiency measure
described here. These sub-measures and the associated average handling times for 8(e)'s
are: (a) average time spent sorting mail for 8(e)'s in the Confidential Business
Information Center (CBIC) - 5 minutes per 8(e); (b) average time spent processing 8(e)'s
in the CBIC - 10 minutes per 8(e); (c) average time searching the CBITS and/or MTS
databases - 20 minutes per 8(e); (d) average time spent retrieving 8(e)'s from the CBIC -
25 minutes per 8(e); and (e) average time spent retrieving 8(e)'s off the shelf and
replacing them - 2 minutes per 8(e). Collectively, these sub-measures represent the
complete activity profile for 8(e) processing and searches. The time estimates are based
on interviews with key staff conducted by the program.
(2) Convert average time baseline to average cost: For sub-measures that describe tasks
performed by EPA staff, average time estimates have been converted to average cost by
taking the standard hourly rate for a biologist at grade 14, step 1; dividing by 60 to
express the hourly rate in minutes; and multiplying the result by the average time
estimate (in minutes), yielding the average cost per 8(e). Similar calculations are
145
-------
performed for sub-measures that describe contractor tasks, except that the hourly rate is
obtained from actual experience under the applicable contract.
(3) Set targets for fiscal years: The gradual expansion of electronic reporting and
scanning is the main factor driving the targeted improvement in the measure. Target
setting is based on what is considered reasonable and achievable. Targets are expressed,
preliminarily, as the expected percentage increase in electronic submissions or scanned
8(e)s from the baseline fiscal year and the amount of time required for handling of such
materials.
(4) Conduct measurements: The final step in the measurement process is to perform
the actual measurements for specific fiscal years. This is done by consulting the
databases described earlier to determine the actual proportion of submissions and
searches/retrievals that are electronic and the proportion that are non-electronic, and
inserting these data into the appropriate average cost formula. For instance, with respect
to the average sorting time measure, one substitutes the actual proportion of non-
electronic submissions for the target of .95 and the actual proportion of electronic
submissions for the target of .05, leaving all other numbers in the formula the same.
There are a number of facts and assumptions underlying the preceding methodology: (a)
Baseline 8(e) submissions and searches are all conducted non-electronically; (b) The overall
number of submissions and search requests will remain static over the three-year period; (c)
Possible increases in contractor and EPA staff costs are disregarded; and (d) for the average time
searching CBITS/MTS sub-measure, the cost of electronic searches is proportional to search
time (i.e., 20 minutes / 5 minutes = baseline cost divided by 4 = $12.40/4 = $3.10). For the other
sub-measures, the average time and average cost are zero. Note: Item (a) can be considered a
fact, while items (b)-(d) are assumptions.
The calculation is the nearly the same for new chemical submissions. Just substitute "new
chemical submissions" for "8(e)" above. The sub-measures and the associated average handling
times for new chemical submissions are slightly modified. They are: (a) average time spent
sorting and processing mail for new chemical submissions in the Confidential Business
Information Center (CBIC) - 35 minutes per new chemical submission; and (b) average time
searching and retrieving new chemical submissions - 45 minutes per new chemical submission.
Collectively, these sub-measures represent the complete activity profile for new chemical
submission processing and searches. The time estimates are based on interviews with key staff
conducted by the program.
The performance measures are suitable efficiency measures because average cost takes into
account all expenses involved. The sub-measures exhaust all activities which contribute to
process and the associated costs. The data collected and analyzed represent the costs of 8(e) and
new chemical processing and are the most acceptable data available for this measure. All data
meet the QMP requirements and outcomes are reviewed by OPPT senior management.
Suitability: The indicators selected are suitable and appropriate because they reflect expected
cost savings stemming from automation of the new chemical submission and 8(e) notification
and review process. This represents EPA's progress toward its goal of improving program
efficiency.
146
-------
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 Review: 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 these measures.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. The measures do not require inferences from statistical samples
and therefore there is no estimate of statistical error.
New/Improved Data or Systems: As mentioned above, the development and deployment of the
new MITS (Manage Toxic Substances) database will enable users to track electronic submissions
and handling of 8(e) and new chemical information. The system will provide data on the number
of electronic submissions per fiscal year and the number of searches and retrievals conducted
electronically by accessing scanned documents.
References: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tsca8e/
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Cumulative number of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals with Screening
Level Hazard Characterization Reports completed [PART measure]
• Cumulative number of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals with Risk-Based
Decisions completed [PART measure]
Performance Database: EPA uses a reporting spreadsheet called "Hazard Score and Data Gaps
for High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals to track the number of completed Screening
Level Hazard Characterization Reports. The spreadsheet is located on the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) secure Local Area Network (LAN) drive (G:\HPV Hazard
Characterization), with the working copy located on the Branch Chiefs desktop. EPA uses a
reporting spreadsheet called "Risk-Based Decisions for High Production Volume (HPV)
Chemicals" to track the number of completed Risk Based Decisions and other developed
products besides the Hazard Characterizations described above that contribute to those decisions,
such as Fate Characterizations, Exposure Characterizations, and Risk Characterizations. The
entire process associated with tracking chemicals through the Security and Prosperity Partnership
(SPP) is also tracked through the High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS)
database.
Data Source: The Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports are completed by EPA staff
based on submissions from chemical sponsors, and are completed for both U.S. HPVs and
147
-------
international Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) chemicals. Each screening level hazard
characterization document represents a thorough review by qualified EPA personnel of the
information provided by the submitter. Once a report is completed, as determined by senior
scientist and management review, the spreadsheet is updated with the chemical name and date of
completion. Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports are combined with Exposure and
Fate Characterizations based on information received from industry through the TSCA Inventory
Update (IUR), leading to development of Risk Characterizations for each chemical. Division
Directors within OPPT look holistically at this information and make a Risk-Based
Recommendation. A Risk-Based Decision is then made by the OPPT Office Director and this
integrated product is made publicly available through the HPV Program website and through
HP VIS.
Methods and Assumptions: Hazard characterizations contribute to the Agency's ability to
make Risk Based Decisions for HPV chemicals. The measures count the number of completed
Hazard Characterization products (reports) at the time they are forwarded from the Risk
Assessment Division to the Chemical Control Division, and the number of associated Risk-
Based Decisions, measured at the time that the Office Director's decision is made final. Public
posting of the Risk-Based Decision occurs approximately 2-4 weeks following decision
finalization.
Suitability: Both of these measures are direct output measures of the Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction program. These output measures support the outcome goal of reducing risk from
HPV chemicals and are suitable for year to year as well as quarter to quarter comparisons.
Hazard screening is an important first step in reducing risk and Risk-Based Decisions form the
primary basis for taking action to reduce risk and improve human health.
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 August 28th, 2006, and under the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Quality
Management Plan (QMP) ("Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics; Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances," June 2003) and the program will
ensure that those standards and procedures are applied to this effort. Specifically, each Screening
Level Hazard Characterization Report is reviewed by a senior staffer in the HPV program, the
Branch Chief and the Division Director. The same review is applied to the count of cumulative
Screening Level Hazard Characterization Reports completed.
Data Quality Reviews: Recent GAO reviews found that EPA does not routinely assess the risks
of all existing chemicals and faces challenges in obtaining the information necessary to do so.
EPA has taken several steps to respond to these reviews including successful implementation of
a process to routinely assess risks of existing chemicals. Data submissions have been received
for 1,357 (97%) out of the 1,401 chemicals sponsored directly in the HPV Challenge Program.
EPA scientists are currently utilizing the data to review HPV chemicals and develop screening-
level Hazard Characterizations (HC). The screening-level HCs will be combined with Exposure
Characterizations to create Screening-level Risk Characterizations, which will summarize any
potential risks, identify scientific issues, and ensure transparency and risk communication. For
148
-------
chemicals of concern, voluntary and regulatory Risk-Based Decisions will then be implemented
to achieve effective risk management.
Data Limitations: None.
Error Estimate: Not applicable. No models, assumptions or statistical methods are applied.
New/Improved Data or Systems: A content page is available for posting the Screening Level
Hazard Characterization Reports publicly on EPA's HPV website
http://iaspub.epa.gov/oppthpv/hpv_hc_characterization.get_report. A content page is under
development for posting Risk Based Decisions publicly on EPA's HPV website. This website
will post Risk-Based Decisions as an integrated product of Hazard, exposure and fate
characterizations, which form the basis of the decision making process. The site will allow for
review of the all products leading to the Risk-Based Decisions by the chemical sponsors and
other interested parties and will contain instructions for submitting comments on the reports or
underlying data. The comments will also be posted.
References:
"Quality Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances;" June 2003.
GAO-05-458: Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess Health
Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program, June 2005
GAO-06-1032T: Chemical Regulation: Actions Are Needed to Improve the Effectiveness of
EPA's Chemical Review Program, August 2006
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Number of risk management plan audits and inspections completed
Performance Database: The EPA Annual Commitment System (ACS) is the database for the
number of risk management plan audits.
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, EPA Headquarters (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: Regions enter data into the Agency's Annual
Commitment System. HQ prepares an annual report. Data are count data and not open to
interpretation.
149
-------
QA/QC Procedures: Data are collected from states by EPA's Regional offices, and reviewed at
the time of Regional data entry. Data are regularly compared to similar data from the past to
identify potential errors.
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 and the EPA Regional offices.
Error Estimate: Not calculated.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
Reference: N/A
FY 2009 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.
150
-------
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
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 2009 Per for ma nee Measures:
• Number of Brownfields properties assessed [PART performance measure]
• Number of properties cleaned up using Brownfields funding
• Number of jobs leveraged from Brownfields activities
• Billions of dollars of cleanup and redevelopment funds leveraged at Brownfields
properties. [PART performance measure]
• Acres of Brownfields made ready for reuse [PART performance measure]
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
151
-------
Cleanup Required
Cleanup Completion Date
Funding Leveraged
Jobs Leveraged
Performance measure data is tracked by fiscal year and will not be available for the FY 2009
PAR; data will be available for the FY 2010 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.
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.
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
152
-------
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 launched and phased in an online reporting form in FY 2007.
References: For more information on the Brownfields program, see Investing in Partnership,
Possibility and People: 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 2009 Performance Measure:
• 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 Environmental Justice (EJ) Collaborative Problem-Solving (CPS)
Cooperative Agreement (CA) Program within the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ)
established and maintains the "EJ CPS CA Performance Tracking Database" in Lotus Notes to
support the above program performance measure. The purpose of the program is to fund
individual projects that each employ CPS strategies to improve environmental and/or public
health in a specified community with environmental justice concerns. The database consists of
specific information and data that are gathered from individual project files and entered by OEJ
project officers who are assigned to one or more individual projects. To determine progress
toward the above-stated program performance measure, OEJ periodically evaluates the
information and data in the database and project files for completed projects using the consistent
program procedures described below. Each completed project has the potential to be counted as
one community that meets the program performance measure.
Data Source: The main sources of data for this program performance measure are semi-annual
reports that are submitted to OEJ project officers by the recipients of EPA CPS CA projects.
Each OEJ project officer enters data and information from these reports into the above-
mentioned database. The most important type of data in the semi-annual reports are current
values for one or more performance measures that are each associated with a project-specific
performance goal and baseline. The units of these measured values, as well as the goals and
baselines have been evaluated to determine if they are appropriate, reasonable, realistic and will
ensure a strong logical linkage with the above-mentioned CPS CA program performance
measure. As described below, the logical linkages are designed to ensure that the attainment of
the project-specific goals for a given project serves as a reliable basis for concluding that the
community named in the project has achieved "significant measurable environmental and/or
public health improvement through collaborative problem-solving strategies."
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The projects in the EJ CPS CA program are awarded
through a competitive review process in which applications are received in response to periodic
153
-------
requests for applications (RFAs). Each award recipient generally is a community-based
organization that provides a project manager who reports to an OEJ project officer. The RFAs
instruct applicants to define the specific potential environmental justice concern that their project
proposes to address, and also instructs them to provide the outputs, outcomes, performance
goals, and performance measures that are expected from their project. The process for
evaluating these applications is guided by a published evaluation criteria and consensus among
reviewers as to whether a given applicant has proposed a strong strategy that will "achieve
significant measureable environmental and/or public health improvements through collaborative
problem solving," as required by the above-listed program performance measure. After the
projects are selected for award, each OEJ project officer works with the project manager in the
awardees' organization to refine a priority list of outputs, performance measures and goals, and
baseline measures that must be tracked at least monthly throughout the life of the project. These
lists also are used to prepare the templates for the semi-annual progress reports, which are the
primary sources of data for the program performance measure, as described in the previous
section. In working with the project manager to establish these lists, each OEJ project officer
uses program guidance to ensure that the performance measures, performance goals, and baseline
measures for the project are appropriate, reasonable, and realistic, and are consistent with OEJ
procedures for determining when the project has met the program performance measure stated
above. In addition, each OEJ project officer follows OEJ guidance to ensure that project
performance measures and goals are being tracked accordingly throughout the life of the project.
The units of measurement for the project-specific goals, measures, and baselines often vary
between different projects depending on the types of community improvements being pursued by
each project. However, the structure of the CPS CA program enables the OEJ project officers to
coordinate with each other and with their respective CPS CA project manager to ensure the
establishment of similar project goals between projects that are addressing similar types of
environmental and/or public health improvements in their communities. The lists of indicators
selected for each community vary due to the unique nature of the improvements the communities
are trying to make. Examples of the types of improvements include but are not limited to:
• Increased coordination between healthcare providers and local government service
organizations, and
• Reductions in exposures of community residents to:
- Contaminated groundwater in their private wells,
- Household toxins (such as asthma triggers and lead),
- Workplace toxins (such products used in nail salons and floor-finishing
businesses)
- Emissions from nearby hog farm operations
- Diesel emissions from nearby trucking operations.
Some of the key measures used to track these improvements include, but are not limited to
numbers of:
• Patients newly referred to a specific government service organization by project-trained
healthcare workers
• Participants completing a specific training on how to reduce their exposure to toxins
• Participants who commit to making one or more behavior changes
• Participants observed to have made one or more behavior changes
• Households with reduced exposures
154
-------
• Business owners who commit to one or more specific behavior changes, such as
modifying their operations to reduce releases of pollutants
• New regulations, ordinances, or laws resulting from project activities
QA/QC Procedures: 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) approved Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) for projects involving
the collection of primary or secondary environmental data.
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: The first round of collaborative problem-solving projects was not structured
to capture baseline information and some detailed performance measure data. However, the files
for these projects contain information and data that can be used in concert with OEJ guidance to
make determinations as to whether the results of each of these projects meet the program
performance measure by achieving "significant measureable improvement" in their respective
communities.
Error Estimate: NA
New/Improved Data or Systems: The CPS Program revised the solicitation to improve data
collection. Awards made in FY 2007 are structured to capture baseline information and more
detailed performance measure data. This change will be reflected over the next several years.
References: For more information on collaborative problem-solving see EPA 's Environmental
Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model.
(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/grants/cps-manual-12-27-06.pdf)
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Additional people served per million dollars (US and Mexico federal expenditures)
[PART efficiency measure]
• Number of additional homes provided safe drinking water in the Mexican border
area that lacked access to drinking water in 2003 [PART annual measure]
• Number of additional homes provided adequate wastewater sanitation in the
Mexican border area that lacked access to wastewater sanitation in 2003 [PART
annual measure]
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.
155
-------
Data Source: Data sources include U.S. population figures from the 2000 U.S. Census to
establish the baseline, 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).
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), Cd Juarez, Chih, and North American
Development Bank (NADBank), (San Antonio, TX, 2002).
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Acres of habitat protected or restored in National Estuary Program (NEP) study areas
[PART annual measure]
• Program dollars per acre of habitat protected or restored [PART annual 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).
156
-------
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 report on NEP achievements
during 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: There is not necessarily a direct correlation between
the number of habitat acres restored and protected and ecosystem health, nor are habitat quantity
or quality the only indicators of ecosystem health. But, habitat acreage is an important
measure of on-the-ground progress made toward meeting the EPA annual goal of protecting and
restoring habitat in NEP study areas. EPA has defined and provided examples of Aprotectiong
and Arestorationg activities for purposes of tracking and reporting measures (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 creation of habitat, , acquisition
of areas for the purpose of protection, conservation easements and deed restrictions, efforts
resulting in increased submerged aquatic vegetation coverage, permanent shellfish bed openings,
and efforts resulting in increased anadromous fish habitat.
The NEP "Habitat Acres Protected or Restored" efficiency measure is calculated by dividing the
total ocean and coastal protection program dollars by the total NEP acres protected or restored.
The measure is based on habitat data collected by the NEPs as described above and reported in
the annual habitat measure, and the total amount of program dollars. That amount is: (1) the sum
of the NEP/Coastal budget (including the additional funds for Long Island Sound), (2) the
Marine Pollution budget, and (3) 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.
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
157
-------
(same parcel may also be counted by partnering/implementing agency or need to be replanted
multiple years). In addition, 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); rather, the acreage is one 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 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 2002) is available on the Intranet
at http://intranet.epa.gov/ow/informationresources/quality/qualitymanage.html
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Restore or protect acres of coastal habitat including tidal wetlands, dunes, riparian
buffers, and freshwater wetlands. [Long Island Sound]
Performance Database: The Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) 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 National
Estuary Program (NEP) (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis). The EPA Long Island
Sound Office (LISO) requires the states of New York and Connecticut, which are Long Island
Sound Study Management Conference partners, to collect and report acres of habitat restored and
protected as required by the NEP. The states use internal project tracking systems to gather,
summarize and report restoration and protection data to LISO, which, in turn, enters the data into
the OWOW habitat information system.
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 is confident that the data
presented are as accurate as possible. The EPA Long Island Sound Office (LISO) reviews the
information prior to reporting. In addition, EPA LISO conducts regular reviews of state habitat
restoration work to help ensure that information provided in these documents is accurate, and
progress reported is in fact being achieved.
158
-------
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 for LIS. EPA has defined and provided
examples of Aprotectiong and Arestorationg activities for purposes of measure tracking and
reporting (see citation for the PIVOT website in references below.) "Restored and protected" is a
general term used to describe a range of activities. The term is interpreted broadly to include
created areas, protected areas resulting from acquisition, conservation easement or deed
restriction, submerged aquatic vegetation coverage increases, permanent shellfish bed openings,
and anadromous fish habitat increases.
QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the state and federal staff of the LISS
Habitat Restoration Team 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 LISS staff are requested to follow EPA guidance to prepare
their reports, and to verify the numbers. 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: The LISS is developing a new data system to report and
track habitat restoration data from the LISS. This will include latitude and longitude data (where
possible) for each project. These data would be mapped to highlight where these projects are
located in the LISS study area. This system is expected to be developed over the next several
federal fiscal years. 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: See V&V for National Estuary Program for PIVOT and NEPORT.
159
-------
Results of Long Island Sound habitat restoration efforts are documented in the biennial reports,
Sound Health, and Protection and Progress, and the annual LISS Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan Implementation Tracking Report, available at:
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/publications.htmfeeports.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Reduce point source nitrogen discharges to the Long Island Sound as measured by
the Long Island Sound Nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
Performance Database: 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. The states of Connecticut and New York
are required, as part of their delegated NPDES permit programs, to periodically monitor and test
effluent for appropriate pollutants, including nitrogen, complete DMRs and enter this
information into PCS.
Data Source: Permittee self-reported DMR data are entered into PCS by state offices, which are
delegated to implement the NPDES program. 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. Nitrogen waste load allocations (WLA) are specified in the December 2000
A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Analysis to Achieve Water Quality Standards for
Dissolved Oxygen in Long Island Sound that was prepared by the states of New York and
Connecticut and approved by EPA in conformance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
The TMDL nitrogen WLAs are included in the NPDES (state-delegated) permits issued by the
states for dischargers to Long Island Sound.
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
EPA's PCS standards for point source data. Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures are in
place for PCS data entry. State and Regional PCS data entry staff are required to take PCS
160
-------
training courses. 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 is 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: There may be errors of omission, misclassification, incorrect georeferencing,
misdocumentation or mistakes in the processing of data.
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, 2007.
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.
References:
Nitrogen TMDL: http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2719&q=325604&depNav_GID=1654
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/publications.htmfeeports
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Reopen miles of river and stream corridor to anadromous fish passage through
removal of dams and barriers or installations of by-pass structures such as fishways.
[Long Island Sound]
Performance Database: A publicly accessible web-based database is under development by
the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) to track this measure. Currently, the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection and the New York State Department of
161
-------
Environmental Conservation track and report fish passage projects and the additional miles
of river and stream corridors reopened as a result. The states submit these data to the EPA
Long Island Sound Office, which is one of the goals of the LISS.
Data Source: The Long Island Sound Study has established a Habitat Restoration Team
(HRT) comprised of federal, state, and local agency staff and private organizations.
Public/Private projects to reopen river and stream corridors to fish passage are tracked by the
work group coordinators (staff in the states of Connecticut and New York). In addition, the
EPA Long Island Sound Office conducts regular reviews of state habitat restoration work to
help ensure that information provided in these documents is accurate, and progress reported
is in fact being achieved. Long Island Sound Study Habitat Restoration annual reports on
projects are made available at http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/habitat/index.htm
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: The Long Island Sound Study goal is to reopen an
additional 50 miles of riverine migratory corridor from 2006-2011, or 8.33 miles/year. From
1998 to 2005, the cumulative amount of miles reopened was 81 miles. In future years,
additional river miles reopened beyond that baseline will be counted toward the goal.
For each project, the location (state, town), stream name, cause of degradation, project
description, miles restored, targeted fish species, implementation partners, and project
funding are tracked. Miles restored are calculated based on the length of stream that is
reopened to fish by eliminating the obstacle.
QA/QC Procedures: Stream miles are considered reopened after fish are observed passing
through the obstacle.
Data Quality Review: Each project report is reviewed by the habitat restoration
coordinators, Habitat Restoration Team, and the EPA Long Island Sound Office.
Data Limitations: The stream corridor is considered reopened when anadromous fish are
observed passing through the obstacle. The data do not assess the success rate of fish
passage or the use of the upstream habitat.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data Systems: The LISS is developing a new web-based data system to
report and track habitat restoration data from the LISS. This will include latitude and
longitude data (where possible) for each project. These data would be mapped to highlight
where these projects are located in the LISS study area. This system is expected to be
developed over the next several federal fiscal years.
References: 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 2009 Performance Measure:
162
-------
• 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 Fish and Wildlife 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 report14 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
14 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.
163
-------
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.
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
164
-------
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• In partnership with the Corps of Engineers, states and tribes, achieve no net loss of
wetlands each year under 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
165
-------
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;
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. Between 2000-2002, the Corps developed a new national permit
tracking database called ORM (Operation and maintenance business information link,
Regulatory Module) to replace its existing database (RAMS). ORM1, as it was called, was
deployed in most of the Corps' 38 districts by Fall 2006, but in 2004 the Corps began partnering
with EPA on a set of comprehensive upgrades to ORM1 to spatially enable the data management
system and improve data sharing capabilities. By July 2007, the upgraded version of ORM
known as ORM2 had been deployed in 37 of the Corps' 39 districts. This should enable national
reporting in 2008. Unlike ORM1, ORM2 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 ORM2 via a system of web-services
and web-mapping tools. EPA's interface with ORM2 (tentatively named the Wetlands
Information Layer (WIL)) is currently under development and will provide EPA with the ability
to access and manage the data available in ORM2 to help meet business needs in the Section 404
program.
ORM2 is being designed to provide improved tracking regarding:
166
-------
• 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
• Mitigation banks via the inclusion of a comprehensive module for tracking and managing
mitigation banks known as the Regional Internet-based Bank Information Tracking
System (RIBITS). With EPA's assistance RIBITS has been piloted in 4 Corps districts to
date.
References: Regulatory Analysis and Management System (RAMS) website:
http://www.cecer.army.mil/td/tips/product/details.cfm?ID=265&TOP=l
Regional Internet-based Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS) website:
http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/pls/erdcpub/WWW_WELCOME.NAVIGATION_PAGE?tmp_
next_page= 114145
National Academy of Sciences (2001). Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean
Water Act. Washington DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/wetlandsmitigation/
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Average annual percentage decline for the long-term trend in concentrations of
PCBs in whole lake trout and walleye samples [PART performance measure]
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 FY09, the database will
contain quality reviewed field data from fish collected in 2007 and all quality reviewed analytical
data for fish collected between 1972 and 2006. 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 2007 is expected to be able to be used for reporting in 2009. 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.)
167
-------
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 vitreuni) are used
for that Lake.
All GLFMP data are independently reviewed for quality consideration prior to loading 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. GLNPO rounds the calculated value to the nearest whole percentage for
reporting and comparison purposes. 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 online (see reference #3 below). The revised draft field sampling Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and draft Quality Management Plan has been submitted to the
GLNPO QA Officer for review and approval. Approval of the revised sampling objectives is
subject to results of a peer review conducted in fall 2007.
Data Quality Review: GLNPO's Quality Management System has been evaluated as
"outstanding" in previous peer and management reviews4 (see reference #4 below). Specific
highlights relative to this indicator include: "QA requirements are systematically planned using
the DQO process. Major programs such as the Open Lakes Monitoring (Lake Guardian
168
-------
sampling activities), Open Lakes Organics Monitoring, the Biology Monitoring, the Great Lakes
Fish Monitoring and the Legacy Act program were exemplary in systematic planning and
documenting QA requirements. " (4) 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.
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 tentatively 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 this
new data quality objective and associated data is tentatively scheduled for the 4th quarter 2007.
This peer review will also assist in providing 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. GLNPO has
awarded a new consortium grant for these analyses that allows researchers from three different
universities to specialize in their individual areas of analytical expertise and provide more timely
data of a higher quality.
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.
"The Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - A Technical and Scientific Model For Interstate
Environmental Monitoring" September, 1990. EPA503/4-90-004.
"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/
"Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program - Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sample
Collection Activities", Great Lakes National Program Office. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/fishtoxics/GLFMP_Q APP_082504.pdf
"GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf
169
-------
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Average annual percentage decline for the long-term trend in concentrations of
PCBs in the air in the Great Lakes basin [PART performance measure]
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 2007 will be reported in 2009. 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. GLNPO rounds the calculated value to the nearest whole percentage for reporting and
comparison purposes. A baseline percent decrease was determined using data through 2000, and
the aim is that this rate of decrease will continue.
170
-------
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has a Quality Management System in place, which conforms to
the USEPA Quality Management Order and is audited every 5 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
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 was partially addressed through the recent implementation by GLNPO of the
Great Lakes Aquatic Contaminant Surveillance (GLACS) program, which had water
contaminant data collected in Lakes Michigan and Superior.
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 inter-comparison 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,
171
-------
which includes atmospheric data from many North American networks and is linked from
lADN's website at: http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/iadn/data/form/form_e.html 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." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/air.html
Details of these analyses can be found in the Laboratory Protocol Manuals or the agency project
plans, which can be found on the IADN resource page at
http ://www. epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/air/iadn/iadn.html
Overall results of the project can be found in "Technical Summary of Progress under the
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Program 1990-1996" and the "Technical Summary of
Progress under the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network 1997-2002". Both (as well as
the Atmospheric Loadings reports) can be found on the IADN resource page.
2. "Quality Management Plan for the Great Lakes National Program Office. " EPA905-R-02-
009. October 2002, Approved April 2003.
3. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006". Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Number of Beneficial Use Impairments removed within Areas of Concern. [PART
performance measure]
Performance Database: USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office will track the
cumulative total Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) removed within the 26 Areas of Concern
(AOC) located entirely within the United States and the five AOCs that are shared by both the
United States and Canada.
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: Restoration of U.S. or Binational Areas of Concern
will ultimately be measured by the removal of all beneficial use impairments, leading to de-
listing of all of the U.S. or Binational Areas of Concern by 2025. A total of 43 Great Lakes
Areas of Concern have been identified: 26 located entirely within the United States; 12 located
172
-------
wholly within Canada; and 5 that are shared by both countries. 301 United States or Binational
Areas of Concern remain. Remedial Action Plans for each of these Areas of Concern address one
or more of up to 14 beneficial use impairments associated with these areas. At the end of Fiscal
Year 2006, there was a total universe of 260 beneficial use impairments reported in the United
States or Binational Areas of Concern. An impaired beneficial use means a change in the
chemical, physical or biological integrity of the Great Lakes system sufficient to cause any of the
following:
-restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
-tainting offish and wildlife flavor
-degradation offish wildlife populations
-fish tumors or other deformities
-bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems
-degradation of benthos
-restrictions on dredging activities
-eutrophication or undesirable algae
-restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems
-beach closings
-degradation of aesthetics
-added costs to agriculture or industry
-degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations
-loss offish and wildlife habitat
Additional information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.html
The States work with the local stakeholders in the Areas of Concern to develop delisting criteria
for the impaired BUIs. The BUI delisting criteria are used to assess when a BUI is restored and
can be delisted. After all BUIs in an AOC are delisted, the entire Area of Concern can be
delisted.
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 5 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 reviews (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:
173
-------
1. GLNPO will develop and maintain the appropriate tracking system for de-listed U.S. or
binational Beneficial Use Impairments.
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 2006." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Cubic yards of contaminated sediment remediated (cumulative from 1997) in the Great
Lakes [PART performance measure]
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
2008 remediation will be reported in FY 2009.
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 quality system
documentation 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. GLNPO sums the volume estimates as provided by the individual project
managers, but then rounds the cumulative total to the nearest one hundred thousand cubic yards
for reporting purposes.
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
174
-------
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. (See reference # 5 below). Specific highlights from this review relative to
this indicator include: "Across GLNPO, assessment of the quality of existing data and
documentation of the quality of existing data for intended use is a standard practice. This is
commendable as the Agency is still attempting to define requirements for usability existing
data." 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 Basin. 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 Great Lakes National Program
Office files.
2. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Matrix". Unpublished - in Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
175
-------
3. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Sediment Remediation Pie Charts". Unpublished - in Great Lakes
National Program Office files.
4. Giancarlo Ross, M.B. "Compilation of Project Managers Informational Sheets". Unpublished
- in Great Lakes National Program Office files
5. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Cost per cubic yard of contaminated sediments remediated (cumulative). [PART
Efficiency Measure]
Performance Database: Data tracking sediment remediation volumes and costs are compiled
for all Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) projects. As all GLLA projects are managed by
GLNPO, project volumes and costs are all readily available within 2-3 months of project
completion. This database is updated with cost and volume numbers at the completion of each
GLLA sediment clean-up project.
Data Source: GLNPO collects sediment remediation data for all the GLLA projects. At the
completion of each project a hydrographic survey is conducted that provides accurate volumes
for dredged/remediated sediments at all GLLA projects. This information is collected using an
approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). All GLLA projects require a QAPP prior to
conducting work at the site. GLNPO does not accept data without adequate assurance that a
QAPP was in place and the reporters of the data are not likely to be biased. Following the
completion of a project, a final report is developed that includes information on
dredged/remediated sediment volumes. Also, at the close of each project a final accounting is
conducted to provide accurate final cost estimates.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: This measure allows comparison of the actual cost of
remediating Great Lakes contaminated sediments (pursuant to the Great Lakes Legacy Act) to a
threshold cost of $200 per cubic yard. The target is achieved when the actual cost of
contaminated sediment remediation (cumulative) pursuant to the Legacy Act is less than or equal
to $200 per cubic yard. The program does not anticipate that actual costs per cubic yard would
decrease each year, particularly since project costs are expected to increase as they become more
complicated and disposal costs increase in future years.
The estimated sediment remediation cost target of $200 per cubic yard has been determined
using best professional judgment. Reference points include a 2004 effort by the U.S. Great
Lakes Policy Committee and a January 2007 paper on Environmental Dredging Costs analyzing
64 completed environmental dredging projects.
Targets and results will be reported on a calendar year basis. The program will use total funding
as the basis of this measure, but will also track federal and non-federal dollars. Final project
176
-------
costs and the quantity of cubic yards of contaminated sediments will be calculated using
cumulative numbers.
Data are collected to track the amount of sediment remediated and project cost. Projects are not
included in the database until they are completed; partial project information is not reported for
this measure.
QA/QC Procedures: GLNPO has a QA Manager who is responsible for approval of the QAPP
for all GLLA projects. A QAPP is required for each GLLA project and a draft Quality
Management Plan for the GLLA is used as an overall quality management guide. Part of this
site-specific QAPP includes information on the hydrographic surveys used to determine volume
estimates for each project. EPA contractors oftentimes accompany the surveying crew to ensure
all procedures are followed. This information is typically made available approximately 2-3
months following project completion.
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. GLNPO's Quality Management System has been given "outstanding" evaluations in
previous peer and management reviews (see Reference #4 below). GLNPO has implemented all
recommendations from these external audits and complies with Agency Quality Standards.
Data Limitations: The data generated from this efficiency measure should be used as an
indicator of the general trend in the costs of sediment remediation under the Great Lakes Legacy
Act.
Error Estimate: A specific error estimate is not available.
New/Improved Data or Systems: The recent GLNPO Quality Management Review of GLNPO
from July of 2006 highlighted the following improvements:
"Management of the Great Lakes Legacy program is exemplary. Ensuring conformance
with EPA 's quality requirements was evident in the creative approach to planning and
overseeing quality throughout the life cycle of the project. The draft 2005 Quality
Implementation and Management Plan is comprehensive. QA plans reviewed were
detailed and appropriately approved. Post project meetings with EPA, state partners and
local advisory councils to review project with focus on detailing lessons learned is a best
practice. Data Quality Assessment to determine opportunities for improvement is a
critical component of the QA Project Plan. The project officers are to be commended for
the documented life cycle management for the Great Lakes Legacy Act Program. (4)
References:
1. Estimates of Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Needs. U.S. Great Lakes Policy Committee.
January 11, 2005. Unpublished - in USEPA GLNPO files.
2. Estes, T.J. 2007. Environmental Dredging Project Costs—The Mystery. The Mystique, The
Muddle. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments.
177
-------
3. Tuchman, M and Alexander, M. 2007. Remediation of the Black Lagoon, Trenton,
Michigan, Great Lakes Legacy Program. Draft Report.
4. "GLNPO Management Systems Review of 2006." Available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/qmp/qualitysystemsassessment.pdf.
FY 2009 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]
• Total nitrogen reduction practices implementation achieved as a result of
agricultural best management practice implementation per million dollars to
implement agricultural BMPs [PART annual efficiency measure]
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
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
178
-------
various pollution reduction efficiencies - depending on type and location in the watershed - to a
common currency of sediment reduction.
Agricultural BMP costs include all capital and O&M costs assumed by both landowners and
government agencies. This measure focuses on agricultural BMPs because they are the most cost
effective way to reduce nutrient loading in the watershed.
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, 2006 and are expected on an annual
basis after 2006. Data are from Chesapeake Bay watershed portions of NY, MD, PA, VA, WV,
DE, and DC.
The FY 2009 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
calendar year 2008 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for calendar
year 2008 in September 2009.
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.
Agricultural practice costs used in the PART efficiency measure are in the guidance document
"Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and
Attainability" (Technical Support Document) found at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/ecoanalyses.htm under "Part I: Documentation of Estimated
Costs of the Tier Scenarios". The direct address is
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/doc-ecoanal-PartI.pdf Specific cost information for
agricultural practices begins on electronic page 59 and a summary table of unit BMP costs is on
electronic page 93.
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.
179
-------
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.
180
-------
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 (2008)
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
181
-------
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 2008. 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 at 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/186-data-2003.xls. See "Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model Application and Calculation of Nutrient and Sediment Loadings, Appendix H:
Tracking Best Management Practice Nutrient Reductions in the Chesapeake Bay Program, A
Report of the Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee", USEPA Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, MD, August 1998, available at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/777.pdf
See USDA NRCS Field Office Technical Guide available at
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/. The indicator and data survey is published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2007reports/IndicatorSurveyReducingPollution032906.doc
See "Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and
Attainability" (Technical Support Document) found at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/ecoanalyses.htm under "Part I: Documentation of Estimated
Costs of the Tier Scenarios". The direct address is
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/doc-ecoanal-PartI.pdf Specific cost information for
agricultural practices begins on electronic page 59 and a summary table of unit BMP costs is on
electronic page 93.
FY 2009 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
182
-------
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
1985-2006 and are expected on an annual basis after 2006.
The FY 2009 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
2008 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2008 in September 2009.
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/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 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
183
-------
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/! 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.
184
-------
The indicator and data survey are published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2007reports/IndicatorSurveyReducingPollution032906.doc
FY 2009 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
1996-2006 and are expected on an annual basis after 2006.
The FY 2009 Annual Performance Report for these measures will be based on the results of the
2008 data collection. We expect to receive the preliminary results for 2008 in March 2009.
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 Okay,jokay@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.
185
-------
The indicator and data survey are published at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/2007reports/ForestBuffersRestoredIndicator030607.doc.
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) score for overall aquatic ecosystem
health of coastal waters nationally (1-5 scale) [PART Long-term outcome measure
tracked annually]
• Improve the overall health of coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico on the
"good/fair/poor" scale of the National Coastal Condition Report.
Performance Database: EMAP/NCA [Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program/National Coastal Assessment] database (housed EPA/ORD/NHEERL/AED,
Narragansett, RI)(Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and
Development/National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory/Gulf Ecology
Division); pre-database information housed in ORD/NHEERL facility in Gulf Breeze, FL (Gulf
Ecology Division) (pre-database refers to a temporary storage site for data where they are
examined for QA purposes, have appropriate metadata attached and undergo initial statistical
analyses); data upon QA acceptance and metadata completion are transferred to EMAP/NCA
database and are web available at www.epa.gov/emap/nca. 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
186
-------
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
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
187
-------
EPA/ORD). Batch sample processing for laboratory analyses requires the inclusion of QA
samples in each batch. All states are subject to audits at least once every two years. All
participants received training in year 2000 and retraining sessions are scheduled every two years.
Data Quality Reviews: Data quality reviews have been completed in-house by EPA ORD at the
Regional and national level in 2000-2003 (National Coastal Assessment 2000-2003) and by the
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) in 2003 (assessment completed in June, 2003 and
written report not yet available; oral debriefing revealed no deficiencies). No deficiencies were
found in the program. A national laboratory used in the program (University of Connecticut) for
nutrient chemistry, sediment chemistry and fish tissue chemistry is being evaluated by the
Inspector General's Office for potential falsification of laboratory results in connection with
other programs not related to NCA. The NCA has conducted its own audit assessment and only
one incorrect use of a chemical digestion method for inorganic chemistry samples (metals) was
found. This error was corrected and all samples "digested" incorrectly were reanalyzed at no
cost.
Data Limitations: Data limitations are few. Because the data are collected in a manner to
permit calculation of uncertainty and designed to meet a specific Data Quality Objective (DQO)
(<10% error in spatial calculation for each annual state estimate), the results at the Regional level
(appropriate for this performance measure) are within about 2- 4% of true values dependent upon
the specific sample type. Other limitations as follows: (a) Even though methodology errors are
minimized by audits, in the first year of the NCA program (2000) some errors occurred resulting
in loss of some data. These problems were corrected in 2001 and no problems have been
observed since, (b) In some instances, (<5%) of sample results, QA investigation found
irregularities regarding the precision of measurement (e.g., mortality toxicity testing of controls
exceeded detection limit, etc.). In these cases, the data were "flagged" so that users are aware of
the potential limitations, (c) Because of the sampling/ analysis design, the loss of data at a small
scale (~ 10%) does not result in a significant increase in uncertainty in the estimate of condition.
Wholesale data losses of multiple indicators throughout the U.S. coastal states and territories
would be necessary to invalidate the performance measure, (d) The only major source of
external variability is year-to-year climatic variation (drought vs. wet, major climatic event, etc.)
and the only source of internal variation is modification of reporting indicators (e.g., new indices,
not a change in data collected and analyzed). This internal reporting modification requires a re-
analysis of earlier information to permit direct comparison, (e) There is generally a 2-3 year lag
from the time of collection until reporting. Sample analysis generally takes one year and data
analysis another. Add another year for report production and peer review, (f) Data collections
are completed annually; The EPA/ORD data collection collaboration will continue through 2004.
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.
188
-------
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.
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Restore water and habitat quality to meet water quality standards in impaired
segments in 13 priority coastal areas
189
-------
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
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
190
-------
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Restore, enhance, or protect a cumulative number of 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).
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
191
-------
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, groundtruthing, 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
192
-------
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, groundtruthing, 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.
References:
Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources, Volume 1. U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, 1998
Conservation Challenge; FL,AL,MS,LA,TX Coastal Regions, National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program MX 984769
Project Period: 8/06/1999-12/31 0/2007. Website: http://www.nfwf.org
The Gulf Community Restoration Partnership Program (GCRP). This program provides acreage
through the combined efforts of the NOAA Community-Based Restoration Program and the Gulf
of Mexico Program's Gulf Ecological Management Sites (GEMS) program and the Gulf States
natural resource agencies and the Gulf of Mexico Foundation. Website:
http://www.gulfmex.org/restoration.htm
SIR 2006-5287: Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico:
1940-2002 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Achieve no net loss of 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 nutrient availability
193
-------
• 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
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
194
-------
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. A summary metric or species composition
indicator (CSI) that assesses the relative importance of slow-growing plants to community
composition is being computed for the 30 permanent seagrass monitoring sites. During the first
10 years of monitoring, this CSI index had an average of 0.48 + 0.04 (+ one standard error of the
mean). The significance of changes in the SCI will be assessed using these distribution
parameters. 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. Analyses are run in duplicate using independent NIST-
traceable for each determination. If the duplicate analyses differ by more than 10%, additional
samples are run. A summary elemental content indicator metric or elemental indicator (El),
which is the mean absolute deviation of the N:P ratio of seagrass tissue from 30:1 is computed
for the 30 permanent monitoring sites. In 2006, the mean El was 8.28 + 1.47 (j_one standard
error of the mean). The significance of changes in the El will be assessed using these
distribution parameters.
195
-------
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. Tools are being further developed to allow users to query data by location, date
and parameters collected. 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 dam arine. org/fknm s_wqpp
http ://research.myfwc. com/features/category_sub. asp?id=23 60
FY 2009 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
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. Stormwater Treatment Area (STA) effluent phosphorus
monitoring is in place as required by Florida and NPDES permits.
196
-------
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 0.1 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 2009 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
197
-------
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
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.
198
-------
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent of time 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) (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.
Error Estimate: A quantitative estimate of error in the database is not possible.
199
-------
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 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent of days of the beach season that beaches in each of the U.S. Pacific Island
Territories monitored under the Beach Safety Program will be open and safe for
swimming. (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.
References: N/A.
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
200
-------
• Protect, enhance, or restore acres of wetland habitat and 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: 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.
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.
201
-------
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: Lower Columbia River Restoration Inventory can be found at:
http://www. 1 crep. org/hab itat_inventory. htm
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Clean-up acres of known contaminated sediments.
Performance Database: EPA's Regional Office will maintain a database of Columbia River
data from the sources described below. Clean-up data are likely to be generated at Bradford
Island, managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ); Portland Harbor, an EPA Superfund site; and other small
RCRA clean-up sites managed by ODEQ on the Columbia River.
Data Source: Information will be collected from state, federal and local agency partners.
Information from the Bradford Island clean-up will be collected by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Information from the
Portland Harbor Superfund site will be collected by EPA and other partners. Information from
RCRA clean-up sites will be collected by ODEQ. EPA directly oversees the work at Superfund
sites; for clean-up sites managed by other entities, like the Corps of Engineers, EPA accepts the
information received but does not independently verify the information.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Acres are the unit of measurement used. Acreage
reporting will be from EPA for Superfund work efforts and for non-Superfund work, acreage
will be provided by state, federal and local agency partners.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's Regional staff collect primary data based on site documents related
to individual clean-up activities. EPA directly oversees the work at Superfund sites; for clean-up
sites managed by other entities, like the Corps of Engineers, EPA accepts the information
received but does not independently verify the information. There are Quality Assurance Project
Plans (QAPPs) for individual sediment clean-up projects.
Data Quality Review: Sediment clean-up projects, such as those included under this measure,
are very expensive. Closely managed construction projects are carried out by contractors under
strict oversight by responsible parties (e.g., the Corps). The actual clean-up work is carefully
overseen by parties with huge financial interests at stake and there is little realistic opportunity
for significant error in counting acres addressed. Also, there is close monitoring of sediment
data quality, as this is an objective of these clean-up projects.
Data Limitations: The actual clean-up work is carefully overseen by parties with huge financial
interests at stake and there is little realistic opportunity for significant error in counting acres
202
-------
addressed. There is close monitoring of sediment data quality, as that is the objective of these
cleanup projects.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ecsi/ecsi.htm
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Restore the acres of tidally- and seasonally-influenced estuarine wetlands. [Puget
Sound]
Performance Database: This measure is closely related to acres protected or restored for the
National Estuary Program (NEP) measure. Puget Sound is one of 28 estuaries in the NEP. 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 National Estuary Program On-Line Reporting Tool (NEPORT) is a web-
based database that EPA developed for NEPs to submit their annual Habitat reports. Links to
NEPORT can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport . Annual results have
been reported since 2000 for the NEP (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).
Data Source: The Puget Sound Partnership is the current home for the Puget Sound NEP. It
works with its partners to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. 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. "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.
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 is
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.
203
-------
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews conducted yet.
Data Limitations: Current data limitations include: information may be reported inconsistently
(based on different interpretations of the protection and restoration definitions), acreage may be
miscalculated or misreported, and acreage 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: Links to NEPORT can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport .
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Improve water quality and enable the lifting of harvest restrictions in acres of
shellfish bed growing areas impacted by degraded or declining water quality. [Puget
Sound]
Performance Database: This measure is related to acres protected or restored for the National
Estuary Program (NEP). Puget Sound is one of 28 estuaries in the NEP. 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.
Upgrading shellfish bed classifications is included. The National Estuary Program On-Line
Reporting Tool (NEPORT) is a web-based database that EPA developed for NEPs to submit
their annual Habitat reports. Links to NEPORT can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport . Annual results have been reported since 2000 for
the NEP (results are calculated on a fiscal year basis).
Data Source: The Puget Sound Partnership is the current home for the Puget Sound NEP. It
works with its partners to document the number of acres of habitat restored and protected. With
respect to shellfish bed classification the Washington State Department of Health (WDOH) is the
entity that determines and tracks the status of shellfish beds. EPA conducts regular reviews of
204
-------
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 shellfish beds with
harvest restrictions lifted is not a direct measure of habitat quality, but it is a measure of
improving water quality with respect to fecal coliform contamination. This acreage serves as an
important surrogate for water quality and human health protection in Puget Sound.
QA/QC Procedures: The Washington Department of Health does the sampling and analysis,
which forms the basis of their shellfish bed status determinations. They have established QA/QC
procedures. NEP staff utilize the State reported data on areas that have been the subject of
restoration efforts.
Data Quality Review: No audits or quality reviews of the primary data have been conducted by
EPA.
Data Limitations: Data are limited to the commercial shellfish beds which are monitored by the
WDOH.
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. An on-line reporting system—NEPORT— has been developed for the
NEPs= use that will assist in tracking habitat projects.
References: Links to NEPORT can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/neport .
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Remediate acres of prioritized contaminated sediments. [Puget Sound]
Performance Database: EPA's Regional office will maintain a database of Puget Sound
contaminated sediment remediation using the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation & Liability Information System (CERCLIS) used by the Agency's Superfund
program. The CERCLIS database contains information on the types of contaminated sediments/
toxics present in selected sites, as well as some baseline data against which remediation results
may be derived.
Data Source: The CERCLIS database tracks Superfund sites only. Superfund site information
includes remedial designs, feasibility studies and projects at contaminated sediment sites where
remedial actions plans have been implemented. The CERCLIS database also tracks Federal
completions, e.g., Superfund sites where federal clean-up activities have been completed.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The CERCLIS database documents the remedial
actions and Federal completions of projects to clean-up Superfund sites. Within Puget Sound, a
205
-------
Federal completion could correlate to a specific contaminated sediment site and the number of
acres that were remediated. Actual data on the number of acres remediated will be in
background documents related to the particular remediation project. Activities completed, which
include prioritized contaminant remediation (removal, capping, or other remedial strategies), will
count in terms of acres, or portions of an acre remediated. Other databases, such as the EPA
Brownfields program database and the RCRA-Online database may be useful as additional
sources of contaminated sediment remediation data for the Puget Sound sites. These additional
databases may be considered in the future.
QA/QC Procedures: Primary data are prepared by the Superfund staff based on site documents
related to individual clean-up activities. EPA directly oversees the work at Superfund sites.
There are standard operating procedures and data control procedures applied to CERCLIS data.
Data are reviewed quarterly and the data control plan is reviewed annually. There are Quality
Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) for individual sediment clean-up projects.
Data Quality Review: Sediment clean-up projects, such as those included under this measure,
are very expensive. Closely managed construction projects are carried out by contractors under
strict oversight by EPA. There is close monitoring of sediment data quality, as this is an
objective of these clean-up projects too. EPA does periodic audits or quality reviews on
Superfund site data and the CERCLIS database.
Data Limitations: At this time, data on contaminated sediment remediation within Puget Sound
in the CERCLIS database are limited to sites where an EPA Superfund remediation plan has
been developed and implemented. The CERCLIS database only recently began tracking the
number of acres cleaned up and the specific sites where contaminated sediment remediation has
occurred. A new module for tracking this site-specific data was added to the database in June
2007.
Error Estimate: No error estimate is available for this data.
New/Improved Data or Systems: At present, the EPA Regional office plans to use the existing
CERCLIS database to manage data for the performance measure.
References: Link to the Superfund Site Information System at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchsites.cfm
GOAL 4 OBJECTIVE 4
FY 2009 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
206
-------
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-assessments of completion of planned program
outputs.
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. Additionally, completion rates of
research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
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 July 20, 2007)
Endocrine Disrupters PART Program Review, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10002280.2004.html (last accessed
August 16, 2007)
FY 2009 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.
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
207
-------
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 the opportunity to partner with
the agency.
References: EMAP data, available at: http://www.epa.gov/docs/emap/index.html (last accessed
on July 20, 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.
Ecological Research PART Program Review, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10001135.2005.html (last accessed
August 16, 2007)
FY 2009 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 outputs 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
208
-------
• 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)
• Percent progress toward completion of a framework linking global change to air
quality. (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and relevant EPA
office needs for causal diagnosis tools and methods to determine causes of ecological
degradation and achieve positive environmental outcomes. (PART Measure)
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and relevant EPA
office needs for environmental forecasting tools and methods to forecast the
ecological impacts of various actions and achieve positive environmental outcomes
(PART Measure).
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of State, tribe, and relevant EPA
office needs for environmental restoration and services tools and methods to protect
and restore ecological condition and services to achieve positive environmental
outcomes (PART Measure).
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances' and other organizations' needs for methods,
models, and data to prioritize testing requirements; enhance interpretation of data
to improve human health and ecological risk assessments; and inform decision-
making regarding high priority pesticides and toxic substances (PART Measure).
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances' and other organizations' needs for methods,
models, and data for probabilistic risk assessments to protect natural populations of
birds, fish, other wildlife, and non-target plants (PART Measure).
• Percentage of planned outputs delivered in support of the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances' and other organizations' needs for methods,
models, and data to make decisions related to products of biotechnology (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 completion of planned program
outputs.
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, after which no changes are made. The program then tracks quarterly
the progress towards completion of these key outputs against pre-determined schedules and
209
-------
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. Additionally, completion rates of research outputs
are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
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.pdf (last
accessed July 20, 2007).
Global Change Research Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/global.pdf (last
accessed July 20, 2007)
Human Health Risk Assessment Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/hhra.pdf
(last accessed July 20, 2007).
Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/sp2.pdf (last
accessed July 20, 2007)
Ecological Research Multi-Year Plan, available at: http://epa.gov/osp/myp/eco.pdf (last accessed
July 20, 2007)
Human Health Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004373.2005.html (last accessed
August 16, 2007)
Global Change Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004307.2006.html (last accessed
August 16, 2007)
Human Health Risk Assessment PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html (last accessed
August 16, 2007)
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percentage of Ecological Research publications rated as highly-cited publications
(PART Measure).
• Percentage of Ecological Research publications in "high-impact" journals (PART
Measure).
• Percentage of Human Health program publications rated as highly cited papers
(PART Measure).
210
-------
• Percentage of SP2 publications rated as highly cited publications (PART Measure).
• Percentage of SP2 publications in "high impact" journals (PART Measure).
Performance Database: No internal tracking system.
Data Source: Searches of Thomson Scientific's Web of Science and Scopus are conducted to
obtain "times cited" data for programs' publications. Analyses are completed using Thomson's
Essential Science Indicators (ESI) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) as benchmarks. ESI
provides access to a unique and comprehensive compilation of essential science performance
statistics and science trends data derived from Thomson's databases.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: For influence and impact measures, ESI employs both
total citation counts by field and cites per paper scores. The former reveals gross influence while
the latter shows weighted influence, also called impact. JCR is a recognized authority for
evaluating journals. It presents quantifiable statistical data that provide a systematic, objective
way to evaluate the world's leading journals and their impact and influence in the global research
community. The two key measures used in this analysis to assess the journals in which a
program's papers are published are the Impact Factor and Immediacy Index. The Impact Factor
is a measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a
particular year. The Impact Factor helps evaluate a journal's relative importance, especially
when compared to other journals in the same field.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Analyses do not capture citations within EPA regulations and other key
agency documents.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of
Research and Development's Safe Pesticides/Safe Products Research Program, available at:
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publications/bibliometrics/sp_bibliometric_1206.pdf (last accessed on July
20, 2007)
Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and
Development's Ecological Research Program, available at:
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publications/bibliometrics/eco_full_analysis.pdf (last accessed on July 20,
2007)
Bibliometric Analysis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Research and
Development's Human Health Research Program, available at:
http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publications/bibliometrics/human_health_bibliometric_121306.html (last
accessed August 16, 2007)
211
-------
Human Health Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004373.2005.html (last accessed
August 16, 2007)
EPA Ecological Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10001135.2007.html (last accessed
January 24, 2008)
EPA Pesticides and Toxics Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10009012.2007.html (last accessed
January 24, 2008)
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• 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 the AQCD.
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on internal tracking of the time between completion of
AQCD peer review and publication of the EPA staff document.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: To provide an indication of the usefulness of HHRA's
AQCDs, the program tracks the time between completion of AQCD peer review and publication
of the EPA staff document. The program aims to complete peer review at least 60 days prior to
publication of the draft Staff Paper for all AQCDs over the 5 year period 2006 - 2010. The goal
is to achieve 100% coverage of Agency needs by 2010.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Data derived from this measure serve as a proxy for determining the utility of
HHRA's Air Quality Criteria Documents (AQCDs) for the EPA staff document.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Human Health Risk Assessment PART Assessment:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html (last accessed
August 16, 2007)
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Average cost to produce Air Quality Criteria/Science Assessment documents
(Efficiency Measure)
212
-------
Performance Database: N/A
Data Source: Data are generated based on self-tracking of cost per Air Quality Criteria/ Science
Assessment document.
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.
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: Human Health Risk Assessment PART Assessment:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004308.2006.html (last accessed
August 16, 2007)
FY 2009 Performance 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-tracking of grants processing time.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: 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
213
-------
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
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent variance from planned cost and schedule (PART Efficiency Measure)
Performance Database: Integrated Resources Management System (internal database).
Data Source: Data are generated based on 1) self-assessments of progress toward completing
research goals, and 2) spending data.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Using an approach similar to Earned Value
Management, the data are calculated by: 1) determining the difference between planned and
actual performance for each long-term goal (specifically, determining what percent of planned
program outputs were successfully completed on time), 2) determining the difference between
planned and actual cost for each long-term goal (specifically, determining the difference between
what the program actually spent and what it intended to spent), and 3) dividing the difference
between planned and actual performance by the difference between planned and actual cost.
QA/QC Procedures: N/A
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Program activity costs are calculated through both actual and estimated costs
when activities are shared between programs. Performance data reflects only the key program
outputs, and does not include every activity completed by a program. Additionally, completion
rates of research outputs are program-generated, though subject to ORD review.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: Global Change Research PART Program Assessment, available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10004307.2006.html (last accessed
August 16, 2007)
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 1
214
-------
FY 2009 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 estimated to be 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. Criminal enforcement cases are tracked by the Criminal Case Report System (CCRS)
which became operational in FY 2006.
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 annual information on pollution reductions for
concluded criminal prosecutions on a separate case conclusion data form.
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.
215
-------
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
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, was supplemented in FY 2002 and updated in
FY 2004. The guide contains work examples to ensure better calculation of the amounts of
pollutants reduced or eliminated through concluded enforcement actions.
ICIS FE&C became operational in June 2006. This new data system has all of the functionality
of old ICIS (ICIS 1.0) but also has an added feature for tracking EPA enforcement and
compliance activities. In addition, another component of ICIS, "ICIS-NPDES" is being phased-
in as the database of record for the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program and it includes all federal and state enforcement, compliance and permitting
216
-------
data. States are currently being migrated to ICIS NPDES from the legacy data system, the Permit
Compliance System (PCS). States are being phased-in to ICIS-NPDES in accordance with their
current data and system capabilities and the completed migration process is projected to be
completed in FY2009. As a state's data is migrated from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, so too is its
NPDES federal compliance and enforcement data. ICIS-NPDES will have a new feature that did
not exist in the legacy system and that is the capability to accept electronic data directly from
facilities. This new data reporting function is expected to increase data accuracy and timeliness.
To date ICIS-NPDES has become the national system of record for 21 states, 2 tribes, and 9
territories.
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 2009 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) is
used to record key activities and outcomes at facilities during on-site inspections and evaluations.
Inspectors use the ICDS form while performing inspections or investigation to collect
information on on-site complying actions taken by facilities, deficiencies observed, and
compliance assistance provided. The information from the completed ICDS form is entered into
ICIS or reported manually. This measure was selected because it directly counts the complying
actions taken by the facility to address deficiencies communicated by the inspector during on-site
inspections/evaluations. ICDS data can be used to identify trends and generate targeting
strategies.
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
217
-------
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 the legacy data bases (with the exception of some regions participating in the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) database pilot who must still report manually). Legacy databases still
operational include Air Facility System (AFS), RCRAInfo, and PCS for those states not migrated
overtoICIS-NPDES.
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 are
being phased-in to ICIS-NPDES in accordance with their current data and system capabilities
and the completed migration process is projected to be completed in FY 2009.
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 2009 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
218
-------
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: Compliance Assistance (CA) 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. The
Compliance Assistance Conclusion Data Sheet (CACDS) was created to facilitate entry of data
in ICIS on the on-site CA visits. ICIS produces the percentage by dividing the number of
respondents to each of two follow-up survey questions by the number of respondents for each
question who answered affirmatively. 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: At the request of OMB, OECA has agreed to add language to caveat CA
results in EPA's annual Performance and Accountability Report. The language will explain that
our GPRA performance measures are not calculated from a representative sample of the
regulated entity universe. The percentages are based, in part, on the number of regulated entities
that answer affirmatively to questions on our voluntary surveys and do not account for the
number of regulated entities who chose not to answer these questions or a survey.
Error Estimate: None
New & Improved Data or Systems: EPA continues to improve and/or modify elements of the
compliance assistance module in ICIS based on use of the system. OECA will conduct a study
and develop a strategy to use statistically valid techniques to tie outcomes to EPA-provided
compliance assistance activities. Beginning with a pilot survey in FY 2008, EPA will conduct a
survey every three years of a statistically-valid sample of compliance assistance recipients to
measure behavior changes resulting from compliance assistance.
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.
219
-------
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 2
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Number of pounds of reduced (in millions) of priority chemicals as measured by
National Partnership for Environmental Priorities members.
• Number of pounds of priority chemicals reduced from the environment per Federal
government costs [PART efficiency measure]
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
13101; www.epa.gov/tri) requires that regulated facilities report facility-specific, chemical-
specific release, waste and recycling data to EPA.
Methods and Assumptions: 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.
Additionally, when the partner is also a TRI regulated facility, achievement data are verified
against TRI reporting
220
-------
Suitability: 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.
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.
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:
221
-------
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 2009 Performance Measures:
• Pounds of hazardous materials reduced by P2 program participants (PART
measure)
• BTUs of energy reduced, conserved or offset by P2 program participants
• Gallons of water reduced by P2 program participants
• Business, institutional and government cost reduced by P2 program participants
(PART measure)
The Agency's Pollution Prevention programs, or results centers, include Green Chemistry (GC),
Design for the Environment (DfE), Green Engineering (GE), Regional Offices Pollution
Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx), Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP),
Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare (PSH), and Green Suppliers Network (GSN). Each of
these program/results centers operate 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
222
-------
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," aggregating annual progress toward the goals.
Performance Database:
Green Chemistry (GC): EPA has developed an electronic metrics database ("matrix") 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 as well as water
and energy saved 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 2007.
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 varies by project, and generally includes 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, where available.
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. While GranTrack has been used for a number of years it has some
limitations. This year the program is exploring options for upgrading GranTrack and/or using
additional tools to simplify and improve results reporting.
Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange (P2Rx): There are 8 regional P2 Information centers
which coordinate and supply information, training and conferences for local and state technical
assistance providers as well as businesses. These centers report to EPA through grant reports.
These 8 P2Rx centers also host regional modules that contribute to the National P2 Results
223
-------
system that was developed under a grant from the EPA National Environmental Information
Exchange Network (NEIEN) program. Any program can enter measures of outputs and
outcomes into this data system. Over 30 state-level P2 organizations have signed Memoranda of
Agreements to provide data. The P2Rx centers have trained and assisted organizations in
entering their data. EPA is conducting an evaluation of P2Rx services to estimate the portion of
potential customers these centers reach. EPA support of these regional centers and the technical
assistance, publications, training, and information supplied by the P2Rx centers contributes to
national P2 progress. To capture this indirect effect of EPA's role, 10% of the results reported
through the P2Rx center will be counted in EPA performance measures.
Partnership for Sustainable Healthcare (PSH) Program: The Partnership for Sustainable
Healthcare (PSH) program is the new name for EPA's continued effort with the health care
sector, as the former "Hospitals for a Healthy Environment" (H2E) program (now the H2E
organization has become a fully independent non-profit organization.). PSH works, in
collaboration with the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS), and H2E, as
NCMS' sub-grantee, in providing technical assistance to the health care sector. H2E maintains
its own electronic program database. Data are collected voluntarily from Partners on an ongoing
and continuous basis. For pounds of hazardous materials, data are requested on mercury and
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 and water conserved, water pollution reduced,
air emissions reduced, hazardous waste reduced (Ibs/year), and toxic/hazardous chemical use
reduced (Ibs/year).
Environmentally Preferable Products (EPP): 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 annual reporting information from FEC
partners. EPP staff run these reporting data through the Electronics Environmental Benefits
Calculator to calculate pounds of 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 Electronics
Environmental Benefits Calculator to calculate pounds of 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. F Y 2007 data will be collected in
January 2008.
224
-------
Data Sources: GC: Industry and academia submit nominations annually to the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) in response to the annual Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Awards. Environmental and economic benefit information is included in the
nomination packages. Qualitative and quantitative benefit information is pulled from the
nominations and entered in the metrics database. The metrics database pulls this public benefit
information from the nominations. The database currently has information on all technologies
nominated through 2007.
DJE: 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.
GE: Data come from 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 current P2 Grant Database, Gran
Track. In addition, over the coming year the program is piloting the use of a new tool to assist
grantees in projecting and determining grants results and to assist regional project officers in
compiling and analyzing those results.
P2Rx: P2Rx center data are currently secured through the National P2 Results system, compiled
through 8 Regional modules. In the future, more targeted results could be secured through web-
based surveys of customers, pre and post testing of training attendees and case studies following
long term impact of the use of P2Rx services and information.
PSH: Because the PSH program is a voluntary program, the information collected is voluntarily
submitted by hospital Partners. The PSH program maintains an ICR for the collection of data
which allows EPA to collect data from third parties under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
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.
225
-------
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: 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 and Assumptions: GC: The public information is tracked directly through internal
record-keeping systems. Annual benefits are assumed to reoccur. The performance data, while
collected by individual centers, is acceptable for the purpose of performance measurement for
the program, as it addresses the specific measures and reflects an aggregated and quality
reviewed dataset.
DJE: 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/assumptions for each project's measures.
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. The
program is developing a new data collection tool (methodology) for grantees that is designed to
increase the consistency of their data collection methods and to offer a consistent set of costing
assumptions.
P2Rx: Data reported by state and local programs in the National P2 Results system will be
collected and compiled by the regional centers. Some portion of these results, based on an
evaluation of the portion of the customer base reached by the center in each region, will be
attributed to the P2Rx center for that region. The ability to attribute environmental outcomes to
Web-based information and training will rely on customer survey information and Web site user
statistics.
PSH: The data comes directly from program Partners, specifically hospitals. No models or
assumptions or statistical methods are employed.
GSN: The data are aggregated by NIST MEP headquarters and reported to EPA on a quarterly
basis in September, December, March, and June. The data are aggregated to maintain
confidentiality for all companies participating in the program. No models or statistical methods
are employed.
226
-------
EPP: For FEC, the program assumes that partners report accurate data. The assumptions
needed for the Calculator to translate environmental attributes and activities into environmental
benefits are relatively extensive and are laid out in the Calculator's inputs (e.g., the average
lifecycle of a computer, the weight of packaging for a computer, etc.). The assumptions were
reviewed when the Calculator underwent the peer review process. The Electronics
Environmental Benefits Calculator assists institutional purchasers in: 1) measuring the
environmental and economic benefits of purchasing environmentally preferable electronics; 2)
enabling energy efficiency features on electronics during use; 3) extending the useful life of
electronics; and 4) disposing of old electronics in an environmentally sound manner through
reuse or recycling. 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.
Suitability: Hazardous pounds reduced, dollars saved, BTUs of energy reduced conserved or
offset, and gallons of water reduced represent the four Pollution Prevention measures. These
annual measures have corresponding long term goals identified in EPA's 2006-2011 strategic
plan and are suitable for year to year comparisons due to the program's ability to show annual
progress towards reaching these long term goals.
QA/QC Procedures: All Pollution Prevention and Toxics programs operate under the
Information Quality Guidelines as found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines, as
well as under the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Quality Management Plan (QMP) ("Quality
Management Plan for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances," June 2003), and the programs will ensure that those standards
and procedures are applied to this effort. The Quality Management Plan is for internal use only.
GC: 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, nominations
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. Quantitative
benefits are periodically reviewed to be sure they were accurately captured from the
nominations.
DJE: 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.
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
227
-------
QA/QC steps to be developed, as appropriate. The program has been working with the regional
offices this past year to develop consistent QA procedures, which can be applied at the beginning
of the grant and throughout the life of the grant.
P2Rx: Data entered into the National P2 Results system will undergo technical screening review by
P2Rx centers and EPA regional and Headquarters staff.
PSH: Data undergo technical screening review by the grantee (National Center for
Manufacturing Sciences, which administers the program through a cooperative agreement)
before being placed in the database. QA/QC plan is a part of the requirement of the cooperative
agreement.
GSN: Data are 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:. Regarding FEC, EPEAT, and Janitorial Products, the calculators of environmental
benefits (e.g., the Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator and the Green Cleaning
Calculator) underwent internal and external review during their development phases. Regarding
FEC and EPEAT, instructions and guidelines are provided to partners on how to report data.
Reporting forms are reviewed by EPA management when they are submitted. 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 and under the OPPT's Quality Management
Plan (QMP).
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/
DJE: Data collected includes those from industry associations and government reports. Source
data is compared with industry trends and examined by industry and NGO partners.
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
228
-------
Pollution Prevention Resource Center, and National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. Data for
projects managed directly by EPA Regional staff will be reviewed by Regional personnel. Data
will undergo technical screening review by EPA Regional and Headquarters staff and their
contractor before being placed into GranTrack. The P2 program has been working with the
regional offices this past year to develop consistent QA procedures which can be applied at the
beginning of the grant and throughout the life of the grant.
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.
PSH: Not applicable
GSN: Not applicable.
EPP: For FEC, data are entered on-line with an additional error-checking function on the
online form. FEC staff also review the data to ensure that it is sensible, given the context. 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:
GC: Nominations sometimes omit data for a given technology due to confidential business
information. Nominations for the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program are
in the public domain.. 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.
DJE: 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.
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
229
-------
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). In addition, the program is working this year on developing and
integrating new tools to assist grantees in projecting and determining results and to assist project
officers in interpreting and reporting those results.
P2Rx: Limitations arise from variability in individual state and local P2 programs and their
reporting sources, QA/QC procedures, and what is reported. Differences may arise in how
programs quantify environmental benefits, based on state or local legislative requirements.
PSH: 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.
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: FEC and EPEAT have a built-in reliance on partners for data reporting.
Error Estimate:
GE: There may be instances in which environmental benefits are not clearly quantified. In those
instances, the data will be excluded.
DfE: The program simply compiles data and does not conduct statistical analysis. Error
estimates are not available.
P2Rx: The program simply compiles data and does not conduct statistical analysis. Error
estimates are not available.
230
-------
Regional Offices: Any errors detected during internal technical review of performance data
submitted would be addressed, either through correction of data or elimination of data.
PSH: The program does not use a statistical approach to collect the data and therefore does not
have confidence intervals for the performance estimates.
GSN: Not applicable.
GC: The program simply compiles data and does not conduct statistical analysis. Error
estimates are not available.
EPP: 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 Gran Track, 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.
The program's system for estimating and reporting results will undergo further change and
improvement this coming year. We anticipate working to improve the process of projecting and
reporting results through the development of new tools and methodologies. We anticipate that
these changes will simplify results reporting for grantees and will improve the credibility and
predictability of those results.
P2Rx: This center's survey and data collection systems are under initial implementation.
Improvements will be based on the outcome of the pending evaluation
PSH: The H2E organization is in the process of commercializing a 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 2008. The H2E organization has agreed to share the consolidated
information with EPA when data collection begins.
References:
GC: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenchemistry/
DJE: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/
GE: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenengineering/
P2 Programs: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/p2home/index.htm
http: //www. p2. org/workgroup/B ackground. cfm
231
-------
http ://www. epa.gov/Networkg/
PSH: http://www.epa.gov/p2/pubs/psh.htm
GSN: www.greensuppliers.gov
EPP: Information about FEC's annual reporting is on the FEC web site at:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/report.htm
Information about the Electronics Environmental Benefit Calculator is on the FEC web
site at:
http://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources/bencalc.htm
The EPEAT Subscriber and License Agreement is available on the EPEAT web
site at: http://www.epeat.net/docs/Agreement.pdf
Regi onal: http://www. epa. gov/p2'/pubs/local, htm
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Percent change from baseline in reductions of Design for the Environment (DfE)
chemicals of concern per federal dollar invested in the DfE program [PART
efficiency measure]
EPA measures the accomplishments of the Design for the Environment (DfE) Program by
comparing reductions in hazardous chemicals achieved to program resources, including FTE,
overhead and extramural dollars spent.
Performance Database: The DfE program 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 Office of Air and Radiation
on DfE approaches for regulating Local Area Sources, such as Auto Refinishing). Key data
elements used to calculate the efficiency measure are the quantity of hazardous chemicals
reduced and spending information obtained from the OPPT Finance Central database. The
efficiency measure numerator is the total pounds of hazardous chemicals reduced and the
denominator is the annual DfE program resources expended.
Data Source: 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.
Resource data are from OPPT Finance Central
Methods, Assumptions: 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 are 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 provide the
measure for reduction. DfE's Data Program Tracking Spreadsheet includes the
methods/assumptions for each project's measures. Program resources are calculated directly
232
-------
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.
SuitabilityrHazardous pounds reduced is one of four Pollution Prevention annual measures
which have corresponding long term goals identified in EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan and are
suitable for year to year comparisons due to the program's ability to show annual progress
towards reaching the long term goals. The indicators used for this measure are suitable because
reductions in cost per pound of hazardous chemicals reduced are expected to result from
improvements in program implementation. These cost reductions will enable EPA to achieve the
goals of the Design for the Environment program with greater efficiency.
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 are confidential. The information
made public information is limited to aggregated values.
Error Estimate: Due to the sampling methodology, no error estimate is possible.
New/Improved Data or Systems: Each year additional data are 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 program.
References:
http://www.epa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines/index.html
The DfE Program Tracking Spreadsheet contains Confidential Business Information.
FY 2009 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).
233
-------
Members report on results in a calendar year. Fiscal year 2009 data represents members'
calendar year 2008 performance. That data will be reported to the Performance Track program
by April 1, 2009. The data will then be reviewed, aggregated, and available for external
reporting in September 2009. (Calendar year 2009 data will become available in September
2008.)
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. Performance Track facilities
are required to have 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 goals, 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 reporting on each indicator constantly
changes. In a few instances, members make replacement goals due to closure of certain product
lines or other major business changes.
234
-------
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.
Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are estimated based on facilities' reductions in energy
use. To estimate greenhouse gas emissions from energy use, Performance Track uses EPA's
Power Profiler tool (http://www.epa.gov/solar/powerprofiler.htm), which uses emission factors
from the EPA database Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID).
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. Performance Track facilities
are required to have 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 estimate or round data. Also, errors are made in converting units and
in calculations. As mentioned above, in cases where EPA identifies the possibility for these
types of errors, the facility is asked to resubmit the data. In general, 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.
235
-------
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 2009 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 FY09, six (6) projects will be
reaching completion, at which point they are evaluated, and the target is for four (4)
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 2007, OPEI began using the data to
generate a regular 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,
236
-------
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
2009 are projects initiated in 2005 and 2006.
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, storm water
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., reduction in VOC emissions in pounds).
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
237
-------
2-4 years earlier and not incremental benefits during the lifetime of a project. Thus, reporting of
outcomes in 2009 will be based upon projects funded in FY 2005 and FY 2006.
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 initiated 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 published its first State Innovation Grants
Program progress report in early 2008.
GOAL 5 OBJECTIVE 3
FY 2009 Performance Measures:
• Percent of tribes implementing federal regulatory environmental programs in
Indian country. (Strategic Target & PART Measure)
• Percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental monitoring and
assessment activities in Indian country. (Strategic Target & PART Measure)
• Percent of tribes with an environmental program. (Strategic Target & PART
Measure)
• Number of environmental programs implemented in Indian country per million
dollars. (PART efficiency Measure)
238
-------
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 2006-2011 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. This serves as
the performance database for all of the strategic targets, 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. The
system is password protected; 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 implementing Federal regulatory environmental
programs in Indian country" tracks the number of "Treatment in a manner similar to a State"
(TAS) program approvals or primacies and execution of "Direct Implementation Tribal
Cooperative Agreements (DITCAs)."
The performance measure, "Percent of tribes conducting EPA-approved environmental
monitoring and assessment activities in Indian country," reports the number of active Quality
Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) for monitoring activities. 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 continually and are reported mid-year and at the end of
each fiscal year.
The performance measure, "Percent of tribes with an environmental program," counts tribes that
have an EPA-funded environmental office and/or coordinator staffed in the most current year
and that have at least one of the following indicators:
• completed a Tier III Tribal Environmental Agreement (TEA) that specifies actions by EPA
and the Tribe, and includes monitoring, as evidenced by a document signed by the tribal
government and EPA;
• established environmental laws, codes, ordinances or regulations as evidenced by a document
signed by the tribal government;
• completed solid and/or hazardous waste implementation activities; or
239
-------
• completed an inter-governmental environmental agreement (e.g. State-Tribal Memorandum
of Agreement (MO A), Federal-Tribal MO A).
EPA Regional project officers managing tribes with an environmental program input data,
classified by tribe, into the Objective 5.3 Reporting System, to derive a national cumulative total.
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 and Assumptions: The Objective 5.3 Reporting System contains all the information
for reporting on AIEO performance measures and PART measures. The information is entered
into standard query fields in the data system. Thus, there is no allowance for differences in
reporting across EPA's Regional offices, and national reports can be assembled in a common
framework. The assumption is the authorized person who enters the data is knowledgeable about
the performance status.
Suitability: These measures represent progression toward the goal of improving human health
and the environment in Indian country by helping tribes plan, develop and establish
environmental protection programs.
QA/QC Procedures: The procedures for collecting and reporting on the Objective 5.3
performance measures require that program managers certify the accuracy of the data submitted
by the regions to AIEO. This certification procedure is consistent with EPA Information Quality
Guidelines (See http ://www. epa. gov/quality/informationguidelines/index.html for more
information.)
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. This procedure generally follows
guidance provided in EPA Information Quality Guidelines. (See
http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.html for more information.)
Data Limitations: Because data are input by EPA's Regional Project Officers on an ongoing
basis, there may be a time lag between when a tribal program status has been achieved and when
the data are entered 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.
240
-------
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. Present focus is on Operations and Maintenance activities for the Tribal Program
Enterprise Architecture beginning in FY08.
References:
Objective 5.3 Reporting System: https://iasint.rtpnc.epa.gov/TATS/tats_prv/entry_page
OCFO Information Quality Guidelines: http://intranet.epa.gov/ocfo/policies/iqg/index.html
ENABLING SUPPORT PROGRAMS
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Average time to hire non-SES positions from date vacancy closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in working days.
Performance Database: Data is derived from EZ-Hire, EPA's implementation of Monster
Inc.'s Quickhire system used for application development, posting, application submission, and
screening. These data is tracked internally and reported on a fiscal year and quarterly basis. The
data are reported by the servicing human resources offices 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 are 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 is downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet and is 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.
241
-------
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: In November 2006, EPA upgraded to the web-based Hiring
Management version of Monster Inc. 's Quickhire hiring management system. This represents a
significant milestone building on EPA's early adoption of this system.
References: EZ-Hire
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Average time to hire SES positions from date vacancy closes to date offer is
extended, expressed in working days.
Performance Database: Data is manually maintained by the Executive Resources Staff (ERS)
in a Word format. Data is 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 is tracked and reported
quarterly. ERS staff reviews the results and further investigates any data anomalies prior to
finalizing the quarterly report. 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.)
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 it 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.
References: Executive Resources Staff
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
242
-------
• Agency managers' satisfaction with the initial stages of the human resources
hiring process, as measured by the average score across 4 questions (2A through
2D) in the OPM Management Hiring Satisfaction Survey.
This performance measure examines the selecting official's satisfaction levels in these facets of
the vacancy announcement process:
2A- the job summary accurately described the position;
2B -1 was involved in the development of the evaluation criteria;
2C - the evaluation criteria encompassed the Knowledge, Skills, Abilities (KSAs) and
competencies needed for the job; and,
2D -1 received a referral list in a timely manner.
Measured percentage is percent of respondents selecting strongly agree or agree.
Performance Database: Data are derived from OPM's Management Satisfaction Survey which
is part of the Government-wide effort to improve the Federal hiring process. OPM releases
survey results quarterly based on feedback from selecting officials on questions regarding the
Agency's recruitment process. The survey targets satisfaction with the job announcement,
resume contents, applicant quality and quantity, and hiring flexibilities available to obtain the
candidate of choice. Agencies use the data to identify, develop and implement plans to improve
their recruitment efforts.
Data Source: OPM's Management Satisfaction Survey
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: The survey is web-based and administered by OPM
with facilitation by EPA's HR offices. OPM provides the results of the survey once a quarter.
Only managers who have made selections for positions are participants in that quarter's survey,
and the feedback in the survey is a reflection of that manager's experience in the hiring process.
QA/QC Procedures: EPA uses a certification form signed by the selecting official that verifies
that they have taken the survey. That certificate is included in the case file for that vacancy and
is included in the document review as part of the Agency's Human Capital Assessment Program.
OPM is responsible for compiling the survey results in a quality manner and preparing the
Agency's reports. OHR staff review the results, and identify any areas of the hiring process that
may need further investigation.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: N/A
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: N/A
References: OPM's Management Satisfaction Survey
243
-------
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Maintenance and improvement of Mission Critical Occupation (MCO) employee
competencies, as measured by proficiency levels of competencies in MCOs
reassessed in FY 2009.
Performance Database: Plateau is a contractor supplied database and assessment tool. The
database is populated with competency/skills of selected MCOs that are deemed necessary for
successful performance. It includes survey data from employee self-assessments and supervisory
assessments on employee competency/skills.
Methods, Assumptions and Suitability: Survey data have been used to assess
competencies of EPA's 6 priority MCOs. Reassessments of the assessed MCOs are repeated
compared to previous assessment baselines.
the
and
Data Source: Plateau includes survey data from employee self-assessments and supervisory
assessments on employee competency/skills.
QA/QC Procedures: The Office of Human Resources will continue to include the supervisory
assessment to affirm whether the selected MCO has made progress in developing toward the
targeted level of proficiency, identified for successful performance in the necessary
competencies.
Data Quality Reviews: N/A
Data Limitations: Employees self-assess their competency/skills which are averaged with
supervisor assessments, when available. The reliability of the data is subject to scoring bias as
well as over-inflation or under-inflation of self assessments.
Error Estimate: N/A
New/Improved Data or Systems: This is a new competency/skills database.
References: N/A
FY 2009 Performance Measure:
• Cumulative percentage reduction in energy consumption in EPA's 34 reporting
facilities from the FY 2003 baseline
Performance Database: The Agency's contractor provides energy consumption information
quarterly and annually. The Agency keeps the energy consumption data in the "Energy and
Water Database," which is a collection of numerous spreadsheets. The contractor is responsible
for reviewing and quality assuring/quality checking (QA/QCing) the data.
244
-------
Data Source: The Agency's contractor requests and collects quarterly energy and water
reporting forms, utility invoices, and fuel consumption logs from energy reporters at each of
EPA's "reporting" facilities (the facilities for which EPA pays the utility bills directly to the
utility company). The reported 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). In instances when data are missing and cannot be retrieved, reported data are based on a
proxy or historical average.
Methods, Assumptions, and Suitability: N/A
QA/QC Procedures: EPA's contractor performs an exhaustive review of all invoices and fuel
logs to verify that reported consumption and cost data are correct. EPA's Sustainable Facilities
Practices Branch compares reported and verified energy use at each reporting facility against
previous years' verified data to see if there are any significant and unexplainable increases or
decreases in energy consumption 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 2009 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.
245
-------
QA/QC Procedures: QA/QC has been performed in accordance with a CDX Quality Assurance
Plan ["Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Central Data Exchange," 10/8/2004] 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. Automated edit checking
routines are performed in accordance with program specifications and the CDX Quality
Assurance Plan. This Plan is currently being updated to incorporate new technology and policy
requirements and a draft is scheduled to be released at the end of FY 2007 [contact: Sana
Hamady, 202-566-1674]. In FY 2008, CDX will develop robust quality criteria, which will
include performance metric results, for the upcoming CDX contract recompete scheduled to be
awarded in FY 2009.
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,
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.
246
-------
References: CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx).
FY 2009 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
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: Annual Information Security Reports to OMB:
http://intranet.epa. gov/itsecuritv/progrevi ews/: OMB guidance memorandum:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-19.pdf; ASSERT web site
https://cfmt.rtpnc.epa.gov/assert/index.cfm; NIST Special Publication 800-53, Recommended
Security Controls for Federal Information Systems. February 2005:
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 2009 Performance Measures:
247
-------
• 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 actions
taken and 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 General15, and regularly reviewed by OIG
15Government Auditing Standards (2007 Revision), General Accounting Office, GAO-07-162G, January 2007;
Available on the Internet at www.gao.gov/govaud/ybk01.htm, last updated December 2007.
248
-------
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 2007, the OIG
implemented an Audit Follow-up Policy to independently verify the status of Agency actions on
OIG recommendations, which serve as the basis for OIG intermediate outcome results reported
in the OIG Performance Measurement and Results System. The quality of the data will continue
to improve as staff gain greater familiarity with the system and measures, and as OIG performs
follow-up verification reviews to identify and track actions and impacts. The OIG is also
implementing full costing of OIG products to measure relative return on investment from the
application of OIG resources.
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.16
16 U.S. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Audits, Evaluations, and Other Publications;
Available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/oig, last updated October 2007.
249
------- |