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

-------